Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Dog Licences

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the large number of prosecutions for failing to renew dog licences; and whether he will issue a circular to local licensing authorities advising them to send a postal reminder to licensees prior to the date of expiry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): My right hon. Friend has no information other than that given to the hon. Member on 12th April by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary. The issue of reminders is a matter for local discretion, and my right hon. Friend sees no need for the issue of a circular.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a very reasonable thing for the local authorities to send out reminders as they do at present for driving licences, which are valued only at 5s., whereas these are valued at 7s. 6d.?

Mr. Powell: Very many local authorities send out these reminders.

New Office Buildings, London (Parking Provision)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what garage accommodation is to

be provided in the new office block now being built on the south side of Wigmore Street.

Mr. Powell: Provision will be made for parking 52 cars.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that in London, in the most congested traffic area in this country, there are being built blocks of offices like this which either have no car parking accommodation or have only a lamentably small amount of such accommodation? Can my hon. Friend say what steps his Ministry is prepared to take to see that such accommodation is increased, or is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present level?

Mr. Powell: All these are factors which the local planning authority takes into account on each occasion when an application for permission goes before it, and it is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend can propertly interfere with the discretion of the local planning authority.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that local authorities are giving sufficient weight to what is becoming an increasingly urgent problem? There seems to be no point in building blocks of offices if the office workers cannot reach the buildings.

Mr. Powell: There is no doubt that the London County Council, which is the local planning authority concerned, has this matter very much in mind.

Mr. Mitchison: If there is this need for more garages, will the Minister cease refusing loan sanction for garages for council estates?

Mr. Powell: That does not arise on this Question.

Rating Valuation (Seaside Resorts)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that small boarding-house keepers and shopkeepers in places like Cleethorpes that have a seasonal trade of about ten weeks only, are alarmed at the increases in their rating assessments, and fear it may mean bankruptcy to many of them; and if he will reconsider the position of the small seaside resorts with a view to easing the proposed increases in their rates.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I could not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that property in certain towns should be valued differently from property in other parts of the country.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many men bought small boarding houses and small shops in little seaside places like this in the hope that they would keep them, but now they are having to go out to work in order to retain them? The extra burden that this involves will sink some of them. Is this not a special case which the Minister could look at again?

Hon. Members: It is happening all over the country.

Mr. Sandys: If the occupier of a boarding house considers that his assessment for rating does not sufficiently take into account the seasonal character of the trade and the length of the holiday period, that is a proper ground on which to make an appeal to the valuation courts.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not true that it is not only Cleethorpes which is affected but that this sort of thing is happening throughout the length and breadth of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is so. Is not this another example of the Government efforts to reduce the cost of living?

Mr. Sandys: Do I understand that the hon. Member is speaking on behalf of the seaside resort of West Ham?

Water Supplies and Sewerage Schemes, Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of applications for grants towards water supplies and sewerage schemes which have been disallowed in Wales since 26th October, 1955.

Mr. Powell: Five, Sir; but only two of these were, in any case, eligible for grant.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the recent White Paper on rural Wales urged that encouragement should be given to district councils in rural mid-Wales and elsewhere by means of grants towards these schemes, and yet he is now disallowing these schemes altogether?

Mr. Powell: I think that my Answer is evidence that schemes are going forward.

Capital Expenditure

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many projects for capital developments, other than housing, put forward by local authorities, have been rejected or postponed since the beginning of 1956; and the total of capital expenditure involved.

Mr. Sandys: I regret that information in this form is not readily available. In respect of services, other than housing, for which I am responsible, loans amounting to about £16½ million were sanctioned during the first quarter of this year. That is about 9 per cent. less than the figure for the correspondng period of last year.

Mr. Gibson: Ought not the Government to have this information? Is the Minister aware that we are getting reports from all over the country about all kinds of comparatively small building schemes and all sorts of projects other than housing being rejected? Ought we not to be able to get information about that through his Ministry, if necessary in co-operation with any other Ministry which is involved? Will he make an effort in that direction?

Mr. Sandys: Yes; it did involve considerable co-ordination of information from files in a number of different Departments at fairly short notice. That was the difficulty.

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government Whether, in the case of local authorities in new and expanded towns, he is prepared to relax the present restrictions on capital expenditure to enable the provision of urgent social amenities.

Mr. Sandys: All proposals will be carefully considered; but my idea of what is urgent may be rather different from that of the hon. Member.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in new towns, where on average about a thousand families a year are coming into the town, there is a special case for the provision of social amenities, playing fields, swimming baths, etc. In one new town his Ministry is even refusing permission to build a public convenience.

Mr. Sandys: If we are to win the fight against inflation, all local authorities, including local authorities in new towns and expanded towns, will have to make their contribution towards reducing public expenditure.

Mr. Mitchison: While the fight goes on, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the inhabitants of Corby, the new town in question, who happen to need a public convenience, are to do?

Mr. Sandys: I will leave that to the hon. and learned Gentleman's imagination.

Private Street Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will initiate discussions with the local authority associations on the anomalous and obsolescent state of the law on private street works, with a view to working out an agreed solution of the problems involved.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion further if the hon. Member will let him have particulars of the problems to which he refers.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Minister is producing a grave situation by his denial of loan sanction for private street works, and that this would be an appropriate moment for an inquiry? Is he further aware that practically every Private Bill coming before the House includes some Amendment to the law regarding particular local authority areas, thus making the law completely anomalous throughout the country? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that I shall accept his invitation and provide him with particulars of the anomalies and obsolescences in the law in the hope that he will initiate discussions about them?

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for accepting the invitation. The question of loan sanction, which seems to be worrying him, has nothing to do with any anomalous or obsolescent state of the law.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the real difficulty that at present the increasing cost of repairs puts an undue burden on frontagers? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the legislation in this matter is out of date; that it is time it was reconsidered and that it is up to him and to his right hon. Friend to make suggestions and put forward proposals?

Mr. Powell: I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will also play their part.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will accept the suggestions put forward by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council in the Town Clerk's letter of 9th April, regarding the proposed housing scheme for incoming mine workers.

Mr. Sandys: I have informed the Council that I am studying its proposals, and I shall be writing to it again as soon as possible.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that Newcastle-under-Lyme Council is most anxious to co-operate in housing incoming mine workers needed for the coal industry but cannot do so by disregarding the needs of local mine workers already in the area who require housing? Therefore, may we hope that the Minister will approve the very constructive suggestions made by the council?

Mr. Sandys: Within the limits of the law I shall try to be equally co-operative.

Conversions and Improvements (Grants)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what, in each year since 1950, has been the number of dwellings in respect of which he has undertaken to make a contribution towards the losses incurred by local authorities in providing housing accommodation by means of conversion or improvement of existing dwellings or other buildings; and the cost of these contributions;
(2) what, in each year since 1950, has been the number of dwellings in respect of which he has undertaken to make a contribution towards improvement grants made by development corporations and local authorities, respectively; and what has been the cost of these contributions.

Mr. Sandys: Since the Answers contain tables of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Butler: Will the Minister indicate whether those local authorities and private applicants would appear from the


figures to be making the maximum use of these improvement grants for relieving the acute shortage of housing accommodation that exists at present? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the working of the regulations in both cases, particularly with the Ministry's co-operation in respect of the planning difficulties which are so often experienced in making conversions?

Mr. Sandys: I entirely share the hon. Lady's desire to see the maximum use made of these facilities. She will see from the figures which I am circulating that there has been a steep rise in the number of grants made for this purpose.

The information required is as follows:

1. Exchequer contribution towards losses incurred by local authorities.

Period
Dwellings
Exchequer payments made


(1)
(2)
(3)



£


31.7.49–31.3.51
266
Nil


1.4.51–31.3.52
491
1,178


1.4.52–31.3.53
680
5,060


1.4.53–31.3.54
489
9,836


1.4.54–31.3.55
1,123
15,256


1.4.55–31.3.56
1,891
32,929

Note: The figures in column (2) are the number of dwellings for which grant was approved during the period shown in column (1). The figures in column (3) are the Exchequer payments made in that financial year. They include payments in respect of grants approved in earlier financial years.

2. Exchequer contribution towards grants made by local authorities.

Period
Dwellings
Exchequer payments made


(1)
(2)
(3)



£


Up to 31.3.51
479
179


1.4.51–31.3.52
932
1,118


1.4.52–31.3.53
1,316
7,562


1.4.53–31.3.54
2,812
20,019


1.4.54–31.3.55
18,163
40,383


1.4.55–31.3.56
35,636
175,045


Improvement grants are not made by development corporations.

Note: In each Table the figures in column (2) are the number of dwellings for which grant was approved during the period shown in column (1). The figures in column (3) are the Exchequer payments made in that financial year. They include payments in respect of grants approved in earlier financial years.

Requisitioned Premises (Invited Tenancies)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that his instructions in respect to Section 4 of the Requisitioned Houses Act were not received by local authorities until three months after the operation of the Act; and, in view of this delay, if he will take steps to extend by three months the period during which his Department will accept full responsibility for compensation paid to owners under Section 4.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 28th February to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher).

Mr. Collins: Would the Minister agree that local authorities are most cooperative in this matter and do their best to carry out the regulations? Does he not agree that this delay means that they have not been given the time which was intended under the Act, and that this means an unexpected burden on the ratepayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

Mr. Sandys: I do not agree about that. In fact, the results already obtained far exceed anything I had hoped for. Out of 37,000 owners to whom formal invitations were sent, 14,000 have already agreed to give statutory tenancies to their licensees.

Elderly People

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a further statement on the housing of the elderly.

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the Answer is a slightly long one, but I should like to give it now, if the House will bear with me.
I have decided to inquire into the arrangements that are being made for housing elderly persons. My object is to see whether, having regard to the requirements of other sections of the population, old people are receiving a reasonable share of the accommodation provided and whether this is of the kind best suited to their physical needs and financial circumstances.
Accordingly, I propose to ask all focal authorities and certain voluntary organisations to be good enough to send me particulars of what they have done to deal with this problem. While this information is being collected, I shall arrange for a qualified official of my Department to go and see schemes of various kinds in different parts of the country and to make a report to me upon them. I also intend to seek the views of the Central Housing Advisory Committee.
The problem of housing elderly people is in many respects connected with that of providing for their health and welfare. My inquiries will therefore naturally be carried out in close collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of, I am sure, everybody for the action that he has taken? Will he also accept the appreciation of those social workers, knowledgeable people, throughout the country who have been struggling to deal with the problem of old age? Also, will my right hon. Friend speed the matter up as quickly as he possibly can?

Mr. Sandys: An expression of appreciation from the hon. Lady is appreciation indeed. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Mitchison: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's present awareness of the problem, does his statement mean that he will reconsider his refusal to maintain housing subsidies for old people's dwellings, a refusal against which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) abstained from voting?

Mr. Sandys: I thought that my reply was clear. The first thing to do is to ascertain what the facts are and what is being done, and then we can consider what improvements, if any, need to be made.

Mr. Mitchison: And the right hon. Gentleman will not rule out an increase in subsidy?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat out of sympathy with the general feeling of the House.

Major Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend give special consideration to a scheme run by the Salford Corporation in co-operation with the W.V.S. which has brought a great deal of happiness to many old people and has also meant considerable savings to the ratepayers?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has draw attention to that scheme. I will see that that is one of the schemes visited by the official from my Department.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of small flats and bungalows built for aged people in 1955 and for the months of January to March, 1956.

Mr. Powell: Figures are not available for the number of dwellings let to old people, but in 1955, 15,959 one-bedroom dwellings were built and 3,573 were built in the first quarter of 1956.

Mr. Gibson: That seems to indicate that there will be an appreciable reduction in the numbers built this year. Judging by his previous Answers, the Minister regards this matter as very important, and I agree with him. Will he include in his inquiry an inquiry into the increase in the proportion of old people in the country who will have to be housed in the next ten or fifteen years, and will he include in his report a reference to that problem? Local authorities must build for this type of occupant many more houses than are now being built.

Mr. Powell: The number of old persons in the population is clearly a relevant factor in the investigation.

Differential Rent Schemes (Circular)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet issued his guidance to local authorities on the subject of differential rents schemes; whether he will make a statement on its contents; and if he will publish its contents.

Mr. Sandys: I believe that local authorities, who are considering the introduction of differential rent schemes, would welcome some guidance on this subject. I have, therefore, decided to issue a circular giving particulars of


schemes already in operation, together with certain general information based on the experience of local authorities.
The circular will be issued in about a fortnight, and will be published.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the circular also deal with rent rebate schemes?

Mr. Sandys: Primarily, Sir.

Caravan Sites

Mr. H. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he is aware that the caravan-resident population is growing at the rate of at least 3,000 per year; and what his policy is for dealing with the consequent demand for land;
(2) whether he is aware of the need for more sites for residential caravans; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: I have no statistics of the number of caravans in use as permanent residences. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 27th March.

Mr. Butler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that last year 20,000 caravans were produced and that it is probable that production will be at the same rate this year? If the population is deciding to seek this form of residence, surely his Department has some responsibility for providing the land on which the caravans may rest? As the Minister's legislation is presenting local authorities from building houses to let, will he at least find some place upon which a caravan can rest and a tent can be pitched?

Mr. Powell: The number of caravans going into use as permanent residences is purely a matter of conjecture. There are no statistics on the subject. With regard to sites, it is in the first instance for the local planning authority to decide what land shall and what land shall not be used for this purpose.

Building Society Loans (Local Authority Guarantees)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities now operate the agreement under which loans advanced by building societies on house purchases are in part guaranteed by the local authority.

Mr. Powell: Nine hundred and fifty-seven.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that where these schemes have not been adopted increased difficulties are being experienced by young potential householders because under the credit squeeze proposals a larger deposit is needed before one can own a house? Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain what can be done in areas where nothing at all is being done?

Mr. Powell: This is a matter for the initiative of the local housing authority. The number of housing authorities using these powers is increasing rapidly.

Private Enterprise Construction

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of houses built by private enterprise builders during the months of January to March, 1955; and the number for the same months in 1956.

Mr. Sandys: During the first three months of this year 25,450 houses were built by private enterprise in England and Wales. That is about 4,000 more than in the corresponding period of last year.

Mr. Gibson: May I take it from that reply that the number of houses built by local authorities for letting has gone down, or have they also maintained their numbers?

Mr. Sandys: There is no connection between the two. All I would add is that the more people who own their homes, the better it will be for England.

Mr. Mitchison: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no connection when the builders, building labour and the materials are required for both local authority and private enterprise houses?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing a new argument. Previously he has been telling me all the time that it is purely the reduction in the subsidy which is causing some reduction in local authority house building. Now he says that it is a lack of building labour.

Mr. Lindgren: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is making it more and more difficult for young couples to own


their own house? Since he has been Minister house interest charges on a £2,000 house have increased by 15s. a week.

Mr. Sandys: The last positive step taken by the Government in this connection was to reduce Stamp Duty on the purchase of new houses.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman opposite what steps the Socialist Government took to allow any married couples to own their own houses?

Waiting Lists

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the decline in the provision of houses for general need by local authorities, what action he proposes to take to relieve the hardship arising to those families now on local authority housing waiting lists.

Mr. Sandys: It is true that local authorities are likely to build a larger number of houses than hitherto for slum clearance, and that this may result in their building fewer for general needs. But I am confident that they will maintain a fair balance between families living in slums and others on the housing lists.

Mr. Lindgren: While not entering into a discussion about dealing with slums and general housing needs, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that local authority slum clearance varies from one end of the country to another? Many authorities have no slums, and in those areas, because of interest rates, local authorities are refusing to, or cannot, proceed with further schemes. Is he not prepared to deal with the problem?

Mr. Sandys: So far I have received no evidence to show that local authorities in areas where there is an acute housing shortage are, for financial reasons, cutting their house building programmes.

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman is making an inquiry into the question of houses for old people. Will he at the same time make an inquiry into general housing needs? In my limited experience, in my own constituency and the suburbs of London, there are many local authorities which have refused to go on with further contracts when present contracts are completed.

Mr. Sandys: I should be glad to have particulars of individual cases from the hon. Member. All I can say is that so far as the country as a whole is concerned the number of tenders approved during the last quarter was slightly higher than that of a year ago.

Interest Rates and Subsidies

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the effect of the increase of 2½ per cent. in interest charges since November, 1951, on the weekly economic rent of a local authority house costing £1,800 to build.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much the economic rent of a corporation house costing £1,800 will be increased by the raising of interest rates on housing loans since October, 1951, and by the proposed abolition of housing subsidies in the case of the type of house at present receiving the £22 1s. per annum subsidy from which subsidy is to be completely removed.

Mr. Sandys: Since the effect of these changes will usually be spread over the whole, or part, of the local authority's existing houses, the figure asked for will vary from area to area.

Mr. Lindgren: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so "cagey" and unwilling to admit that 1 per cent. on £1,800 means 6s. a week on the rent, and that, as a result of Government administration, interest charges alone have increased by 15s. a week per house?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no local authority will, in practice, allow this increase in costs to fall exclusively on its new houses. If the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have worked it out for himself already, wants a purely theoretical and entirely misleading calculation, I must leave him to do his own arithmetic.

Mr. Allaun: As the Minister is so reluctant to give the figure himself, will he not agree that the extra cost is 23s. 11d. a week? May I accuse him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask him, before forcing through his Measures, to reconsider them, in view of the gross breach of the Government's Election pledge to cut the cost of living?

Mr. Sandys: What I am anxious to avoid doing is to publicise a wholly misleading figure.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from individual local authorities and local authority associations concerning the increased rates of interest on housing loans and the cuts in the housing subsidies.

Mr. Sandys: The gist of these representations was that they would like the rates of interest to be lower and the subsidy to be higher.

Mr. Allaun: Would not the decent thing for the Minister to do be to tell the public that the main blame for this and for the rent increases lies, not on the local authorities, but on the Conservative Government?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the hon. Member will make good any deficiency on my part in making that point widely known.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from the Manchester and Salford area and other areas of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives and other building unions seeking housing loans at 2½ per cent. interest and the annulling of the cuts in the housing subsidies.

Mr. Sandys: The representations were on the lines indicated in the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that leaders of the building unions believe that the Government are consciously proposing to reduce the total building programme to a figure of 200,000 houses a year, with the consequence that the hopes of the homeless will be dashed and unemployment caused within the building industry?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Member must have been reading up the Labour Government's building programme.

Mr. Lindgren: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when interest rates changed from 3 per cent. to 3¾ per cent., his predecessor increased the subsidy from £16 10s. to £26 14s. whereas, now, when the interest rate is 5½ per cent. he has abolished the subsidy?

Mr. Sandys: I can assure the hon. Member that the changes which I introduced were made in full accord with my predecessor.

Premises, Paddington

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what complaint he has received, under Section 171 of the Housing Act, 1936, regarding 207 Lanark Road, Paddington, which is unfit for human habitation and where the responsibilities under the Housing Acts are divided between the Paddington Borough Council and the London County Council in such a way that it has not been possible to assign the ultimate responsibility; and what steps he is taking to obtain the rehousing of the tenants who, at present, have no protection from the weather.

Mr. Sandys: I have received no such complaint. But in view of the hon. Member's Question, I have asked the two authorities concerned to let me have a report on the position.

Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister aware that this is a non-controversial Question about an apparently insoluble problem, and that his help will be greatly appreciated?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Class 2 Factory Inspectors

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour the authorised complement of Class 2 factory inspectors; the number, excluding temporary inspectors, actually in post; and how many of these hold university degrees in engineering, physics and chemistry, respectively.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): One hundred and one. Excluding temporaries, there are 84 in post. Of these, 3, 1 and 4 hold university degrees in engineering, physics and chemistry respectively.

Dr. Stross: Am I right in assuming that the Minister would welcome into the service a much greater percentage of entrants who hold the degrees mentioned in the Question? Does he not agree that the real difficulty is that he is not able to offer a suitable salary scale? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing in order to bring about such a change so that these men and women are fully and properly qualified?

Mr. Macleod: In respect of numbers, the position is getting slightly better. We were thirteen down two years ago and seven down last year. Now, including those just joining and temporaries, we are three down. The question of qualifications and how far they are necessary is one of the main points of the Departmental inquiry which the hon. Member will know about, and which is on the point of reporting to me.

Scientists and Engineers

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Labour whether the inquiry being carried out by the social survey into the numbers and distribution of scientists and engineers includes those employed by Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Armed Services.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The inquiry carried out by the Social Survey is confined to the employment of scientists and engineers in private industry, but a similar inquiry covering those employed by Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority, the nationalised industries and other main users of scientific manpower is being conducted by my Ministry. Information about the number and types of scientists and engineers called up for National Service is already available.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister quite certain that this inquiry is being taken seriously in his Department? Is he aware of the great concern in the country as a whole about the employment of our scientific manpower and its possible dispersion over a number of projects? Is the right hon. Gentleman in close relation with the D.S.I.R. in these matters?

Mr. Macleod: The proper balance between scientists and engineers in the Forces and civilian industry is one of the most important aspects of the whole call-up. I welcome the interest in this matter displayed by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister whether, when he receives the survey, he will make the information available to us in some form so that we may draw up a balance sheet to show where the scientific and technological manpower is being distributed.

Mr. Macleod: I will publish the results of the inquiry, subject to the reservation that some matters regarding the Atomic Energy Authority and other establishments may be governed by security considerations.

U.S.S.R. Citizens (Labour Permits)

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour how many citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have applied, during the last ten years, for labour permits to work in this country.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Permits which are granted to employers were issued for the employment of 179 citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the ten years to the end of 1955. Of these 166 were issued in the last two years.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister think that nowadays there may be an opportunity for developing some form of exchange by which we might have more U.S.S.R. citizens here and send over there some of the categories in this country with distinct Communist leanings, so that they might live in their own paradise?

Gwynedd River Board

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what action he is taking to find alternative employment for the staff of the Gwynedd River Board who have been rendered redundant;
(2) what consultation his branch office have had with the Gwynedd River Board regarding the phasing of redundancy which will arise as a result of curtailment of capital works; and what information his branch office have been given in this regard.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The river board has informed my local offices that all work in hand, which is spread over five counties, will be completed and that no redundancies are expected for some months to come.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, according to my information, within a few weeks, and as a direct result of the Government's policy, two-thirds of the labour force of this river board will be out of work? Could he say what steps he is taking to provide alternative employment for these men and for the other men who will be unemployed?

Mr. Macleod: The information which I have and which comes direct from the board is that this process will take about four to six months. The total number of people involved is about 60, spread over five counties. At that distance of time, it is a difficult problem to make special arrangements, but so far as we can help locally, we shall do so.

Radio-activity (Safety Regulations)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to issue regulations to safeguard the health of those using radio-active materials in industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I would refer the hon Member to the reply to his Question on this subject on 20th December last. The preparation of regulations is proceeding as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman's Department try to get these regulations out quickly? Radio-active materials are being used increasingly in industry, and many countries have already issued regulations. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest a date?

Mr. Carr: It is still hoped that they will be published this year, but there is a complicated statutory procedure to go through, and this is a complicated subject. In the meantime, the hon. Member should realise that all the radio-isotope deliveries from the Atomic Energy Authority are notified to the Factory Department, which is able to follow them through to the places where they are used and ensure that proper safety measures are put into operation.

Restrictive Practices

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement with regard to his discussions with the National Joint Advisory Council on restrictive practices in industry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Council considered the question of restrictive labour practices on 25th April. There was general agreement that this is one aspect of the wider problem of increasing productive efficiency and making the most effective use in all industries of the manpower available. It was also recognised,

however, that this is not a subject which can usefully be dealt with by broad generalisations, but is one to be examined by each individual industry in the context of its own special needs and circumstances.
It was, therefore, agreed to draw the attention of the employers and trade unions concerned in individual industries to the urgent need for a new and positive examination of practices which impede the full and efficient use of manpower resources. The detailed implementation of the Council's decision is to be worked out by the Joint Consultative Committee.
I am glad to say that our discussions of this subject were characterised by a constructive and co-operative approach from all sides of the Council, who were united in their wish to secure the most effective use of our labour resources. I am sure that if the spirit in the Council can be conveyed to those who actually have to tackle the problem in the factory and on the shop floor, we shall have taken an important step forward in the direction of greater efficiency and productivity.

Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this is to be done? Is the N.J.A.C. to take each industry separately? If so, can we then have a report of its findings upon each industry?

Mr. Macleod: The N.J.A.C., having taken the broad decision which is outlined in my reply, have remitted the problem to the J.C.C.—which is a subcommittee—for a detailed examination of how it is to be implemented. The J.C.C. is to meet on 9th May, in a few days' time, so that there will be no delay in this matter. That Committee is to consider how best the two sides of industry can approach the different industries in which such practices take place.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that these restrictive practices in labour are a very great obstacle to national production? Is he confident that merely calling the attention of the employers and unions to the problem will be at all effective?

Mr. Macleod: I am hopeful that this approach is a good deal more than just calling the attention of employers and unions to the problem. We all recognise that this problem exists, and that it is an important one, but the only way in


which it can be tackled is by an industry-by-industry approach, and that is what we are setting out to do.

Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on the last occasion when my right hon. Friend, the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was Minister of Labour, when this question was referred to the N.J.A.C., it was not the trade unions who backed out of it at the last moment?

Mr. Macleod: The main thing that went wrong last time—so far as I can gather from the papers—is that the problem was bogged down in definition. I am a good deal more interested in results than in definition. That is why I think that this approach has a reasonable chance of success.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployment among disabled persons in the City of Birmingham has increased by 50 per cent. since December last; and what action he is taking to find employment for these persons.

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. The number of unemployed registered disabled persons in the City of Birmingham has increased from 35 on 19th December, 1955, to 75 on 19th March, 1956. My local officers are doing all they can to help these people find suitable work and I think that their sympathy and efficiency in carrying out this service are widely known and appreciated.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that the city's committee concerned with this matter is very disturbed about this increase in unemployment among disabled in a great industrial city like Birmingham? Would it not be better to spend the money on training these men for useful service rather than on unemployment pay? Cannot something be done for these persons?

Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Member that we look at this matter with great sympathy but the number represents only 1·2 per cent. of the total registered disabled persons in the city. There are two Remploy factories actively recruiting at the moment. However, I will keep the matter under review.

Carpet Industry

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour to give figures at the nearest available date of short-time working in the carpet industry generally, and for Kilmarnock in particular.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is estimated that in the week ended 28th April there were about 6,000 on short-time in the carpet industry, of whom 570 were in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that this is rather a serious matter, and will he tell us what he and his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, are doing, particularly in reference to the serious fall in demand from the Commonwealth countries? Might not this be a point which could be taken up by the Prime Minister when we have the Commonwealth Conference?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As far as figures are concerned, this is apt to be a quiet period of the year, but I do not pretend that the figures are not very much higher than one could expect from any seasonal causes. Where the services of my Ministry are required, we are doing everything we possibly can to help, but there is no question that there has been a considerable amount of short-time working in the consumer durable industries, of which the carpet industry is an example.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Science Graduates

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Labour how the call-up for National Service of science graduates and analogous classes in this country compares with the call-up of these classes in the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and France.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am assembling such information as is available and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Philips Price: Will the Minister bear in mind and appreciate the importance of getting young scientists into their practical jobs as soon as possible, in order to strengthen the application of science to industry because of its importance to the national welfare generally,


without having their careers broken into by National Service?

Mr. Macleod: I am conscious of that need, but we must also not forget the demands on scientists and engineers which modern services and modern forces are bound to make.

Mr. Lee: While appreciating the Minister's reply, may I ask if he is in a position to answer a supplementary question asked recently about the use of personnel in the Services?

Mr. Macleod: No, not yet.

COST OF LIVING

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the difference in basis as between the new index of retail prices and the old one will cause variations between them in recording fluctuations in living costs; and, during such periods, which reading he proposes to use for official purposes.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Only one calculation is made, and all price changes after January, 1956, are measured only on the basis of the new official index, which now stands at 101. This index, however, records only the percentage change in prices since January, 1956, and, in order to give a comparison with the level of prices in June, 1947, is linked with the earlier series which terminated in that month. The basis of the mathematical calculation is given in the April issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has already been a discrepancy between the two indices, and that where 2 million or 3 million people have their wage rates determined by the alteration in the retail index we may certainly have trade unions insisting upon wage advances when the old index records the appropriate amount of advance, unless we can clarify their position in relation to the index that is being used? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with the N.J.A.C.

Mr. Macleod: I am quite ready to discuss the matter with the N.J.A.C. I have made it clear that there is only one official index—that is the one which started upon a new and obviously better basis in January, 1956. Clearly, as the two have

different bases, it is possible that the same movement of prices could affect the two differently. That is what has happened in the last few months. I am continuing to publish the linking series until the adjustments in wage negotiations—to which the hon. Member has referred—are completed.

MR. BULGANIN AND MR. KHRUSHCHEV (VISIT)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent visit of Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of saving humanity from the threat of nuclear warfare, what proposals he has made to the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during their recent visit, with a view to discontinuing further nuclear explosions.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): A full statement was published at the conclusion of the talks. I do not think it would be helpful for me to add to this at the present time.
A wide range of topics of common concern or of concern to one or other party was raised and discussed. We had long and searching discussions from which we all want to see the most valuable results develop. I am convinced that any attempt to deal in detail and in public with the topics which were dealt with would not lead to the results we all desire.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members on this side of the House share his belief that the visit of the Russian leaders will result in better understanding and closer co-operation—[Laughter.]—between the two countries in the interests of world peace, in spite of the levity expressed by hon. Members opposite? May I ask him one question with regard to the reference by Mr. Bulganin to the Disarmament Sub-Committee discussions, when he said that the problem of disarmament was in a bad state? Is that the view of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that


we all hope that the beginning of an understanding—which we think we have made possible in these talks—will grow in strength and importance for the peace of the world. That is the whole object which we have had in mind since the beginning of this business. As regards the second question, about disarmament, I do not know that I would go quite so far as Mr. Bulganin's statement about the Disarmament Sub-Committee, but I admit that its discussions are in a certain tangled state, and there are many difficulties still to be overcome. I suggest to the House that this is just the kind of question which we all have to consider and examine in the light of the discussions which we have had, and we should be wise to do that for the purpose of getting results rather than for any other purpose.

Mr. Hughes: Will not the Prime Minister tell us whether there was any discussion about future nuclear experiments? Does not he think that if these were ended it would be a sign that the beginning of the beginning had actually begun? Does not he also think that it would be an appropriate moment for him to line himself up alongside Mr. Nehru and Mr. Adlai Stevenson in saying that these experiments should be discontinued?

The Prime Minister: I should have to give a little more consideration to the question of exactly what it is that I have to line myself up with. In view of the exceptional character of these quite remarkable discussions—the longest international discussions between two Powers in which I, personally, have ever taken part—and their pretty full documentation at the end, I doubt whether I should be serving the cause of peace or understanding between the two countries if I were to pick out individual items and say that this, that or the other was discussed. If one does that one gets an inevitable reaction from the other side—"But we raised this and that." If I were to catalogue everything discussed I should be keeping the House a long time and doing no good to anybody.

Mr. Robens: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's original Answer that he felt it would not be quite proper to have a debate on the White Paper

which has been issued? He will probably recollect that in response to a Question he said there might be a White Paper, and he added that it might be useful to have a debate, or words to that effect. Does the Prime Minister now not take that view, in view of the negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I have had no request for a debate. I have no personal view. If a request were made, and if the House thought it desirable to have a debate, we could do so. I should not wish to put ourselves in the position of saying "No" in the matter. I think that a debate could take place having regard to what I said, but I do not want to debate individual items of the discussion. I do not want to be asked "Did you raise this and did you raise that, and what was the result of your raising them?" I have a feeling that that procedure would not be wise, as I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has indeed earned the gratitude of the whole world for the way in which he has conducted these discussions?

Mr. Beswick: On disarmament, the Prime Minister will be aware that we have had the advantage of the verbatim record of the discussions at Lancaster House of the United Nations Sub-Committee meetings. Some of us have tried to follow these matters. Would it not be advantageous to have more information on the exchanges which took place on these subjects during the recent negotiations?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary made a statement a short time ago. I think that the position of the Governments concerned is well known. The discussions were limited to the position of two Powers of a five-Power conference, and the position of the others is very relevant. What we have to do now is, knowing more clearly, as I think we do, each other's points of view as two Powers, to take the opportunity to talk over the position with the others who were not in the two-Power discussions, and see whether any fresh approach is possible.

Mr. Gaitskell: While I appreciate that this arises only incidentally out of the


talks, would the Prime Minister make clear one thing: has the Sub-Committee on disarmament now finished its labours for the time being? Is it reporting back or are there to be further discussions in the Sub-Committee? If not, would the Prime Minister, from the point of view of enlightening public opinion on the matter, consider publishing a White Paper setting out the different views of the different parties?

The Prime Minister: I will gladly consider the point in the last part of that supplementary question. There is the Anglo-French plan, the Soviet plan and the American plan. I understand that the Disarmament Sub-Committee is continuing with its deliberations. I very much hope that it will do so. Then we shall see whether we can make progress, perhaps from slightly different angles of approach.

Mr. H. Morrison: In the White Paper there are references to specific matters being discussed during the visit. Would it be so terrible if the Prime Minister said whether the question of bringing the experimental explosions to an end by international agreement was discussed and give some indication whether agreement was reached or whether that was not possible, because there is great worldwide interest.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that matter would be at all terrible. If there were a debate I could consider it, and see whether something could be done, but I want the House to face up to the fact that that was only one of a very wide range of topics discussed, and that others might think other topics more important. If I talked about them now I would not be helping a solution. There have been discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman has had the experience to know that, if over a period one has confidential discussions, if one gives any indication of what one has said one will be liable to prevent the solution one wants from emerging.

Mr. Robens: From what the Prime Minister has said—I see his point—he will find it rather difficult to deal in detail with individual matters. He said that one person might pick out one topic and another another. On matters such as European security, where the White Paper indicates there was agreement on principle although disagreement on ends,

is that not a matter that he could discuss? Would the Prime Minister feel it difficult or embarrassing to have a debate on such a matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not want there to be misunderstanding. I am perfectly ready to have a debate on the published document at any time, and I do not want to depart from it, if it is the desire of the House. I am at the disposal of the House, but I hope that the House will not ask me to go into detail on matters which are not raised in the White Paper. We all have certain considerations in mind about which we want results to be achieved but I am perfectly certain that that would not be the way to do it.

GREENWICH RESEARCH STATION

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of transferring the control and supervision of the Greenwich Research Station to the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

The Prime Minister: Certain changes in the administration of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are being proposed in a Bill which has recently come to this House from another place. Matters such as this will no doubt be considered when the new Executive Council is set up.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Prime Minister agree that more impetus and direction would be given in this field if it were brought under the direction of the Ministry of Fuel and Power?

The Prime Minister: There is a Bill from another place which deals with this topic and proposes to set up an executive council. We ought to give it a chance to pronounce upon the matter before we attempt to define our position.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed that the principal achievement of this research station in the last twenty years been to discover how to produce oil from coal, and would it not advance matters if it were to reverse the process and show us how to produce coal from oil?

The Prime Minister: They are burnt in about equal measure.

NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES ORDERS, 1952 (REVOCATION)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now prepared to revoke the Notification of Vacancies Orders, 1952.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. I have come to the conclusion that the present usefulness of the Orders is not sufficient to justify the restrictions which they place on the engagement of workers and after consultation with the National Joint Advisory Council, I have decided to revoke them with effect from Monday, 7th May, inclusive. The Employment Exchanges will remain freely at the service of employers and workers and I hope that they will, for their own advantage, make the fullest use of this service.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much time and trouble will be saved both to employers and to trade unions by this welcome step? Can he give any idea how much manpower and money will be saved in the Ministry as the result?

Mr. Macleod: I hope the revocation of these Orders will save employers, trade unions and my Ministry a good deal of work. I have not completed my own sums, but I would hope to save 150 staff as a result of the revocation.

Mr. Lee: The original purpose of the Orders has never been fulfilled and they were a useless gesture. Will it affect the ability of the Ministry to record accurate figures of the change from one employment to another, which under present conditions is vital?

Mr. Macleod: I would not agree with the assertion made by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). These Orders have had a value in relation to the defence programme, at the time they were made. There was no sanction. They relied entirely upon persuasion, but they have progressively and inevitably lost their efficiency. In regard to the second part of this question, there may be a certain sag in the notification of vacancies, but we shall have a more accurate figure, and the trend will re-establish itself very soon.

YORK AIRCRAFT (CRASH)

Mr. George Wigg: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the York aircraft carrying troops and their families which crashed at Stansted on Monday, 30th April, 1956.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): Yesterday morning a York aircraft, operated by Scottish Air Lines, crashed on take off from Stansted airfield. The aircraft which was on charter to the Air Ministry, was bound for Habbaniya and was due to call at Malta. In addition to the crew of five, it carried nineteen R.A.F. officers and airmen, and twenty-six civilians, all but one of whom were members of Service families. There were also four babies.
The aircraft did not catch fire and all but six of the occupants succeeded in getting clear immediately. Two airmen, two women and two children seated near the forward bulkhead were, however, trapped by the collapse of the centre section of the fuselage. When they were eventually freed one airman and one child were found to be dead. The other airman and the two women were injured and are at present in hospital.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has decided that a public inquiry shall be held to investigate the accident. I have decided that in all the circumstances the use of York aircraft for troop-carrying flights shall be suspended pending inquiries.
The House will join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and with the injured.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will associate themselves with the expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is satisfactory in that he has conceded a public inquiry, but does he also realise that it does not go far enough? The trouble here is that the Government—and I think the War Office in particular—are engaged in rate cutting, which forces the companies to use these obsolescent aircraft. Would he therefore consider some form of inquiry—a Select Committee perhaps—into the contract-fixing procedure and the rates which are


being charged for these very old aircraft? Surely the Government must realise that as they are committed to the rapid movement of troops all over the world, and as that involves carrying considerable numbers of troops and their families, it is absolutely esential, in their interests and in the national interest, that the aircraft used should be up to date and thoroughly reliable.

Mr. Birch: Of course, it is my Ministry and not the War Office which is responsible for letting these contracts. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the first consideration should be safety. There are two checks on that. There is the certificate of airworthiness issued by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, and a double check in that the R.A.F. Transport Command carries out in-flight inspections and, by that means, ought to be able to ensure that these aircraft are safe.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Minister now tell us that the Government will reverse their policy of preventing—in fact forbidding—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. tendering against these private firms, and will allow the experience and efficiency of the nationalised airlines to come forward in this important job of air trooping?

Mr. Birch: Tests of safety carried out on these aircraft are exactly the same as those applied to the aircraft of the Corporations.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?

Mr. Birch: It is a much larger question, and does not arise out of this matter.

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement which, although I know he did not mean it to be, was entirely inaccurate. B.O.A.C., when operating Yorks in 1946 and 1947, because civil airline operators thought it unsafe to use them at Luqa airport in Malta, changed over to Tripoli rather than use Luqa, yet the right hon. Gentleman said that even after the previous York disaster this aircraft was still going to its destination via Malta. Is not that most unsatisfactory?

Mr. Callaghan: Might I ask whether the Minister will not open his mind a little on the subject? Does he not realize

that there is some anxiety about the state of affairs in which certain aircraft companies are excluded from tendering for contracts, with the result that the field in which he is operating is limited, and with the possible result that he may not be getting the best aircraft at the right rates? As there is public anxiety about this—which is not confined to any particular section or ideology, or even section of the House—will he not now consider whether it might not be in his own interests, as well as in the interests of the whole country, to reconsider the question of contracts and of excluding firms from applying for contracts, ensuring that there is no rate cutting in a business in which safety is priority No. 1?

Mr. Birch: As I have said, safety is the first consideration. I quite recognise that there is public anxiety, and that is why I have said that, pending the results of these inquiries, trooping by Yorks will be suspended, but I think that the House will recognise that the safety record of this trooping by chartered companies over the last few years has been extremely good.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Herbert Morrison.

Mr. K. Morrison: Can the Minister, without committing himself as to what action will result, give an undertaking to the House that the present policy of the Government of some discrimination against the public Corporations in this class of traffic will at any rate be reexamined, and that he will make a statement to the House in due course?

Mr. Birch: All relevant considerations will, of course, be taken into account in examining these matters.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As there is to be an inquiry we had better await the result of that inquiry. If there is to be a debate, that ought to be arranged at some time other than Question Time. We should do it properly.

Mr. de Freitas: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that on this side of the House we are most dissatisfied with the way in which the Government are handling this trooping and will seek time for a debate?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—

That the Proceedings on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill be exempted, at this day's

Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 194.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[3.39 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glover, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
Marples, A. E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas



Ashton, H.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mathew, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mawby, R. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Body, R. F.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, C.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Bryan, P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hope, Lord John

Pitman, I. J.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Powell, J. Enoch


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Profumo, J. D.


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hurd, A. R.
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison Sir James (Scotstoun)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hyde, Montgomery
Renton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir David


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roper, Sir Harold


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Keegan, D.
Russell, R. S.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kimball, M.
Sharpies, R. C.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leather, E. H. C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leavey, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duthie, W. S.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)



Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Fell, A.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Summers, C. S. (Aylesbury)


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fisher, Nigel
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Teeling, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fort, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Freeth, D. K.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.



Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Gammans, Sir David
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady




Vane, W. M. F.
Wall, Major Patrick
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vosper, D. F.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Wade, D. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold



Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Webbe, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Walker-Smith, D. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)
Mr. Wills and Mr. Godber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hannan, W.
Paton, J.


Albu, A. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, Frank
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A,
Hobson, C. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Randall, H. E.


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)



Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chapman, W. D.
Kenyon, C
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, George, (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Daines, P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, F.


Dodds, N. N.
Mahon, Simon
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mort, D. L.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Moss, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Moyle, A.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fletcher, Eric
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Gibson, C. W.
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Wilkins and Rogers.

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 26th April.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 6.—(EXCEPTED AGREEMENTS.)

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
You will recall, Sir Rhys, that when we adjourned the debate on Thursday evening, and a Motion to report Progress was accepted, we were in the middle of discussing the merits and demerits of Clause 6, and the President of the Board of Trade had explained that whereas Clause 5 was designed to say what should go into the Bill, Clause 6 was designed to say what should be left out. The right hon. Gentleman did not need very much persuasion to agree that subsection (2) of Clause 6 needed a great deal of modification, to say the least, before it was either intelligible or acceptable, and it was at that point that we adjourned our discussions before coming on to subsection (3).
The purpose of this Amendment is to delete subsection (3), which deals with the whole class of patents. We wish, first, to learn from the Government whether, and, if so, why, it is necessary that all patents, patent agreements, licensing under patents—and, if the Minister's Amendments are accepted, registered designs as well—should be excluded from the requirements of registration under the Bill.
As the Committee will appreciate, in a certain sense any agreements relating to patents have always been in a privileged condition under our law. In the days of Elizabeth I, patentees were given various rights and privileges of monopoly which were denied to other classes of traders. Patentees were entitled and, I think, encouraged to enter into restrictive agreements to license either one person or a limited number of persons, with power to exploit the benefit of their inventions.
I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, whether it was a good or bad

thing, whether it worked well for our economy, or whether it produced disadvantages for our economy. In considering, as we are now doing, the whole field of restrictive practices and embarking on a common effort to remove from industry at large anything which is in the nature of a fetter upon expansion and development, we must obviously, at some stage in these Committee proceedings, consider the special place which has always been occupied by those who have made inventions entitling them to the protection of patents, or, as the President of the Board of Trade introduces by his Amendment, those who are entitled to similar protection by having registered designs as a result of an invention or innovation.
It seemed to us that the existing patent law is in itself sufficient—perhaps it is too wide—to protect the interests of patentees and their licensees. It struck us as anomalous, if not unnecessary, that they should require the further protection of being excluded entirely from any obligation to register those agreements under this Bill. It may well be that persons who are patentees or licensees under patents have entered or will enter into restrictive agreements of a kind injurious and obnoxious, just as those who deal in marketable goods not covered by patents have, in the past, entered into agreements which this Bill aims, first, to make registrable, and then to defeat if they are found to be contrary to the public interest.
This Amendment is in the nature of what is called technically a probing Amendment; as I say, we want to inquire, first, why the Government think it necessary that agreements between persons or associations relating to patents, under the terms of which patent licences are granted, should be exempt from the obligation to register. May it not be the case that, in addition to the protection which they have under the existing patent law, there may be those who deal in patented articles who will also enter into agreements of a restrictive kind which should be registered. They may enter into agreements with other manufacturers and dealers relating to articles not covered by the patent law. In these days, a great many manufactured articles are so complicated that certain ingredients are covered by patents while other ingredients are not, and very often there is a very debatable realm in between


in which it is very doubtful whether an alleged patent is valid or not.
It seems to us, therefore, that is quite unnecessary to add to the existing privileges of patentees a blanket exemption exonerating them from any obligation to register restrictive agreements, which otherwise would be registrable, if patented goods or, perhaps, goods the subject of very debatable patents, are in question. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have spoken of trying to make the Bill as all-embracing as possible, and we would, therefore, hope that the Government would be willing to accept this Amendment, because we believe that the objects of the Bill would be served only if, whenever there is any doubt on the subject, an agreement is made subject to registration rather than exempted from it.
We feel that if there is any doubt about the matter, it is much better that an agreement should be brought into the full light of public knowledge. If it then transpires that, on the merits of some particular agreement, there is reason why, under a later provision, it should be deemed not to be contrary to public policy, that can be argued before the Court. In the case of doubt—and there must be many cases relating to patented articles where doubt would arise—such agreements should be registered and not be exempted from registration.

Mr. Donald Wade: The law of patent has for a long time been regarded as an exception to the general rule against agreements in restraint of trade. I agree with the general proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Some form of exemption from the provisions of the Bill may be inevitable, but I do not think we can leave it at that.
In the first place, serious thought would have to be given to the law relating to patents to ensure that the law is not used to the disadvantage of the general public. That is a subject which I cannot very well pursue now it would scarcely be in order. The Liberal Committee on Monopolies, which reported in 1945, did go into this matter and did make some very interesting and—to use a word which was used last week—novel proposals.
This subsection may provide an unintended loophole. I do not wish to set myself up as a purveyor of ingenious devices for evading the Bill. I will take one hypothetical case. It is very similar to cases of Which in fact I am aware, but, as I think the Minister himself suggested in earlier debates, it is fairer to take hypothetical cases.
A man invents a safety device to be attached to a certain machine. He has his invention patented. A manufacturer agrees to make the gadget and obtains a licence. Then a couple of manufacturers of the machine itself ask for a sub-licence, and that is arranged. That is all perfectly proper and normal. The three manufacturers then agree upon a price list, in the first place for the gadget itself. Therefore, we have an agreed price list and the elimination of price competition.
4.0 p.m.
It so happens that in the case which I am suggesting the manufacturers control practically the whole of the market for the machine. It appears to me that, having regard to the condition which provides that there shall be no price competition in respect of the patented article, the gadget would be excluded by subsection (3).
Suppose we take it a stage further and the manufacturers also agree, in the same agreement, that the machine of which the patented article is part should also be sold at a fixed price, so that there is no price competition. It may be that the machine and the gadget are combined in one article and sold at one price and, therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between the gadget and the machine. The agreement would normally be restricted under the Bill, but it may be excluded on account of subsection (3).
That is the kind of case which can easily arise, and I should like to know the Minister's view about it. If he cannot answer now, perhaps he will consider the matter before the Report stage. I can foresee the possibility of very considerable loopholes as a result of the use of the subsection resulting in patented articles being excluded from the provisions of Part I of the Bill.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will give the Committee some


solid, adequate reasons for retaining the provisions in subsection (3). I strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher).
I cannot see why there should be any difference between articles which are the subject of a patent or a licence from a patentee and proprietary articles. If we come to technical distinctions, there may be a philological difference, but I can see no logical difference between the two cases. If an agreement which deals with a proprietary article is subject to registration and examination by a court in the way that it will be, why should there be a distinction between that sort of article and a patented article which is, for all practical purposes, and certainly from the point of view of public interest, in exactly the same category? The gravamen of the matter seems to be why there should be this extraordinary discrimination.
I ask the President to consider this. I appreciate that it is right to protect the patentee, and I do not think that any of us would doubt that. The man who exercises skill and ingenuity and gives the public something of value should have his rights in that sense protected, but protecting a patent is one thing and exploiting the public with it is an entirely different matter, and that is what has to be considered.
There is no question here about protecting the man who is the proprietor or licensee of the patent. It is granted that he should have proper legal and proprietary protection. What must be in issue here, especially in the context of the Bill, is whether the public interest is being affected, whether there is any risk of the public being exploited in respect of articles emanating from the patent, just as there is risk of the public being exploited in connection with any other article, whether proprietary or not. That is the matter to which the Minister must apply his mind. I would ask him to cast his eye over the introductory words of the Title of the Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not think that that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, Sir Rhys, in my humble view it does.

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be so, but in my view it does not.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hoped, Sir Rhys, that this would be relevant. I bow to your decision, of course, but I should like to explain why I introduced the subject.
An effort is being made to exclude a certain commodity, for that is what it is so far as the end-product is concerned; whether it is a patent or not, it is a certain commodity. I am seeking to show that, whereas the Bill in its Title affects every other matter apart from the exclusions stated here, it will allow this exclusion. I think I have made my point, so I will leave the Title of the Bill alone.
I should like the President to remember what The Times said about this matter. It said that the Bill was a precarious affair in any case. It seems to me that if these matters are to be excluded, the Bill will become more precarious than ever. What we are seeking to do, and what I think the President is seeking to do, is to take steps which will protect the public interest, and this is an exception from that, a step which is against the public interest if it is allowed to occur. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter on that basis.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was good enough to say that the Amendment was in the nature of a probing one. The Committee will be appreciative of the contribution which he has made in seeking to clarify what is admittedly a difficult part of the Bill and is connected with a very difficult branch of the law, that in respect of patents.
The hon. Member observed that patents had always been specially treated in our law and were in a privileged position. That is, in substance, true, but the Committee will, of course, have in mind that there is a reason for the treatment of patents in this way. The purpose of our patent system is notably, among other things, by granting exclusive rights for an invention, to stimulate technical progress by encouraging research and invention and to induce inventors to disclose their discoveries instead of keeping them as trade secrets, which they otherwise


might do. So it is right to say that the holders of patents are in receipt of a statutory monopoly in return for making available to the public the results of their inventive ingenuity.
We have these two basic characteristics of our patents system. First, this making available by the inventor of the results of his ingenuity and, secondly, the system of statutory control and safeguards against abuses which is contained in our patent law. That supplies the answer to the first question which the hon. Member for Islington, East was good enough to put. That is why the field of patents should be excluded from the requirements of registration in the Bill. The short answer is, as I have already indicated, that patents are dealt with by an independent code and there are already sufficient safeguards in the Patents Act, 1949.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I appreciate the fact that the inventor is under an obligation to disclose the nature of an invention, but there is no obligation to disclose the nature of the agreement into which he enters with the licensees. We are asking that those agreements should also be disclosed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The effect of the Amendment would be rather more than disclosure of such agreements. It would be to bring agreements relating only to patented goods within the purview of the Restrictive Practices Court. I was about to say that there is already provision in the Patents Act to safeguard the position of the public in these matters. To superimpose upon that a duality of control by making them also liable to registration and investigation by the Restrictive Practices Court would precipitate a conflict of jurisdiction between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Comptroller of Patents.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going into the subject in any detail. If the hon. Member for Islington, East will be good enough to refer to the Patents Act, 1949, he will see the procedure for compulsory licences as of right and the grounds on which such compulsory licences are given set out in detail in Section 37 of that Act and, in particular, paragraphs (b), (d) and (e), which, when he has studied them, if he has not already done so, he will see cover this point very well. In addition, there are the provisions of Section 40, which relate directly to the

recommendations of the Monopolies Commission and the provisions of Section 50 with regard to the avoidance of certain restrictive conditions. I hope that the Committee will, therefore, be satisfied on the general point that there is a full comprehensive code which does not require addition.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred to an all-embracing provision. I cannot altogether resist the conclusion that it would be so all-embracing as to give the kiss of death to the whole thing, because of the awkwardness of this conflict of jurisdiction. On the specific point he raised, I have been long enough in the legal profession to be extremely wary of opinions "off the cuff," especially as I have never practised in this esoteric field, and I am conscious that I am speaking in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who is the country's leading expert on patent law.
My impression is that neither of the agreements suggested by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West would, in fact, come within the exception of the Clause, because he is taking the Clause too widely. I do not think that the agreements would fit the definition of subsection (3) and clearly, the second one would be outwith the wording of the Clause, because there the restrictions would clearly not fit into the word "imposes" in
such restrictions…except in respect of the patented article
because, on his own example the restrictions would go to the machine as well as to the device.
However, so that we need not take too long over these interesting examples, I will say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West that I will certainly check that "off the cuff" opinion, and if I am not right, I can correct it on Report. I will give full consideration to what he and other hon. Members have said. I hope that with that clarification we may be able to part with the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I should like to ask two questions. We who are non-lawyers approach this matter with great diffidence, especially in the presence of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). Is


the Parliamentary Secretary quite sure that he has answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)? What he and others of us are anxious about is simply whether there is a loophole where an agreement which related to a patented article might not at the same time be a restrictive agreement affecting the price, or something of that kind, which would not, as I understand, normally be part of the patent arrangement and which ought, therefore, to come within the Bill.
Looking at the words of the subsection from a commonsense point of view, if I may put it that way, they do say:
…agreement which imposes no such restrictions aforesaid except in respect of the patented article.
I should have thought that agreement about the price of the patented article would have been a restriction in respect of the patented article. Will the Parliamentary Secretary make sure about that and tell us beyond ambiguity that he does not wish to permit a loophole of that kind and that if, between now and Report, he discovers that a loophole is there, he will take steps to remove it?
Supposing there were an agreement between persons, or within an association about the terms on which patent licences would be granted, would such an agreement be registrable under the Bill as it now stands? We ought to know that, because there might be an agreement beyond the ordinary normal patent arrangement—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) put this point—on the terms on which the patent licence would be granted: We ought to know whether that comes within the terms of the subsection.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the licensee accepts a restriction as to price, which he will ordinarily do in the grant of the licence to him, and if the patentee accepts a mutual restriction—and there has to be mutual restriction before the matter comes 'within the ambit of the Bill at all—in respect of the price of the patented goods, then these come within the exemption of the Clause. Those are the conditions relating to the patented goods, and those are the matters in respect of which we are satisfied that the normal

safeguards of our code of patented law are sufficient protection for the public.
I want to make it clear that once the parties go outside the field of the patented goods and include in their agreements restriction of non-patented goods, the exemption does not apply and the agreement is caught by Clause 5.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Who is to decide whether such an agreement should be registered or not?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The decision as to whether an agreement is registrable or not would be dealt with in the same way as any other case of doubt in respect of the registration of an agreement. The first thing for any person in doubt to do is to inquire of the Registrar what his view is as to the registrability of the agreement. There is then, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, provision in the Bill for the adjudication by the High Court of questions of construction as to whether particular agreements come within or without the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sorry to intervene in this debate, but I have had a lot of experience of patented products in the machine tool and engineering industry in general. I do not like to intervene in a debate centring on legal interpretations, because, though I can follow the phraseology of mathematics and engineering, I find it very difficult to follow the phraseology of the law.
My experience goes back over 30 years. I do not want to mention any particular machines or patents, but the common experience in the British engineering industry. An inventor comes along with an invention which he submits to a machine tool manufacturer. This is not an isolated case. He may submit it to a big mass producer of machine tools, such as milling machines, radio drillers, grinding machines, universal grinders, vertical grinders, cap grinders and all sorts of machine tools.
The manufacturer has a look at the invention and decides that it is a good job. He may decide that either he or someone else is prepared to manufacture it, but, in the manufacture of that article, the device will perhaps be slightly altered in regard to the means by which it is attached to the


principal machine, so that it can only be attached to a certain specific machine tool. I have myself actually known cases of very clever inventions adaptable to machine tools, but which, when we came to the process of manufacture, we found could only be used by somebody who already possessed that particular manufacturer's own machine tool.
Whether the patent law covers this situation completely I do not know, but I well remember, before the war, a very clever device being produced. When one bought it, one found that though one had a hundred machine tools of a particular company, American or British, the device was no use unless one had the machine tool of one particular manufacturer, because that patent had been harnessed to that particular machine. I remember another time when a very clever device was invented which could be attached only to one particular product, except by people in the engineering industry with workshops of their own, who could make a new part and adapt the device themselves, which some of us used to do.
Do I understand that, if this Clause is passed, this sort of arrangement which exists in the mechanical engineering industry will be allowed, without any examination at all and without anyone breaking any law? I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade, who was so interested in the liberalisation of trade and the removal of restrictions generally, and who wishes to step up and enlarge inventiveness and production, should stand by and see these practices carried out, since clearly the patent law never checked them in the past.

Sir Lionel Heald: I hesitate to delay the Committee, and I certainly do not intend to go outside the Rules of Order in this discussion. But I think that [the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) ought to be reminded that there was a very important committee called the Swan Committee, which considered the whole of these matters and asked for evidence to be brought before it of particular abuses of patents. This was one of the specific matters dealt with, and that Committee made certain recommendations, upon the basis of which the 1949 Patents and Designs Act was enacted.
That Bill was discussed here and in another place, and all these matters were canvassed, so that it would be wrong for it to go out from this Committee that there are abuses of that kind which are not being covered by the present Act. Certainly, as recently as 1949, following the Report of that very competent Committee, Parliament considered the matter, and a Government of exceptional ability and sagacity also considered it. Therefore, I do not think that we should assume that these matters have not been dealt with.

Mr. Robert Edwards: To challenge the patent law is a very expensive business. I recollect that one particular firm was almost driven into bankruptcy when costs of £75,000 were awarded against it when claiming the right to use a particular patent, which was registered by a British firm, but not used. It cost that firm all that money in litigation to challenge through the law the right to manufacture a compound patented, but not produced, by another firm, which is the very issue here. Therefore, this point should not be overlooked. If we are serious about dealing with restrictive practices and the dangers of monopoly, then we should not miss opportunities of strengthening this Bill to prevent the misuse of the patent law, exclusive control of new technical methods of production and ideas by the use of such methods to keep prices higher than they should be.
It is well known that twice over the last 35 years an everlasting match has been invented. When the first one was produced, it was bought up by the match cartel and never produced again. Another one was later invented and was patented all over the world, but, again, it was bought up by the match cartel and never even put into production. It was patented to prevent its production, and it was within the law, but if any company had wanted to produce that everlasting match, they could have gone to the courts, through the law governing patents, but it would have cost them £1 million or more. It is because of difficulties of this nature that I think that this Amendment should be given serious consideration.
For example, I have here a typical example of how the patent laws are abused. Here is the carton of a three-way plug, which is patented by an


exclusive monopoly. This is what is printed on the carton:
This plug is sold under limited licences. One or more of the following patents have been taken out. Other British and foreign patents are pending.
Then the conditions of sale are given. Listen to this, which is a deliberate abuse of the patent law:
The D.5 fused plug contained in this carton is covered by one or more of the above Letters Patent, and is sold under the following express condition; that it shall not be resold or offered for sale, new or second-hand, used or partly used, at lower than the list price published in the D.5 plug current official list.
That means that, though it is my property, I could not sell this plug, which I bought at the exorbitant price of 12s. 6d., for 1s. after I have used it, because there is a threat at the end of this printed matter, which says:
No allowances, bonuses, gifts or other considerations of any kind, except as allowed by the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association's fair trading policy, shall be made or given by the seller or accepted by the purchaser.
What does that mean? These people are using this patent so that they may lay down the conditions of sale.
4.30 p.m.
The conditions specify, for example, that this plug cannot be purchased in any co-operative society for sale to its members because by abusing the patent laws these conditions of sale are laid down. This is not a case of the protection of the inventor, but of the exploitation of the ideas of the inventor by a monopoly, by the financiers. Indeed, there are very few inventors today—the old backroom artisans—who gain from their ideas. These ideas are bought out and are exploited by monopoly organisations of the nature I have mentioned.
I purchased this plug only last week. The carton carries this printed conclusion:
Any breach of the above conditions by any persons dealing with this article will render such persons liable to an action for infringement of the letters patent.
That means that if a co-operative society manager or a little girl in a cooperative shop gets hold of one of these articles by some means or other and sells it at 2d. or 3d. below the fixed price, or includes it for dividend payment, according to this threat, which is surely illegal, action can be taken.
This is one characteristic example of many thousands that could be quoted of how the patent laws are being deliberately abused. Agreements that have nothing to do with the inventor or with protecting the man who invented an article are used as part of the patent laws to exploit the consumer and to lay down conditions of sale which should come within the registration contemplated by the Bill if we really mean business.
For these reasons, I hope that if the President of the Board of Trade cannot accept the Amendment he will consider a new form of wording for the Clause that will cover deliberate, calculated abuses of this nature of the patent laws.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is one question I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. He mentioned the Patent Acts and he led—I am sure he did not intend to mislead—the Committee to believe that the provisions in the Patent Acts were sufficiently embracing and comprehensive to avoid the mischief which the Bill aims at.
I should, therefore, like to put this specific question to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Where, in any of the Patent Acts, is there provision against restriction as to prices and conditions of price fixing?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would be good enough to look at the provisions of Section 37 (1, e) of the Patents Act; then, perhaps he can tell me whether he thinks it is covered.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I listened very carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but in view of the speeches which have been made in this debate I cannot regard his answer as at all satisfactory. We have had no assurance whatever about agreements that may be made against any manufacturer and we have had no assurance whatever on the question of agreements which may be made with regard to patented articles containing restrictive agreements, which may well be permitted under the patent laws as they stand but certainly would not be permitted if they applied to non-patented articles.
Since such restrictive agreements might apply to articles partly covered by patents


and partly not covered by patents, it seems to me to be most dangerous to leave subsection (3) in the Bill and to exclude agreements from the requirement of registration merely because they are subject to patent law. I hope that my hon. Friends will register their protest in

this matter by dividing in support of my Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word "any" in line 2, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 263, Noes 222.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[4.35 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leavey, J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Foster, John
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Linstead, Sir H. N,


Amery, Julian (Preston, N-)
Freeth, D. K.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Arbuthnot, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Gammans, Sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Ashton, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Barter, John
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
McAdden, S. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, A. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Green, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Body, R. F.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A,
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hay, John
Mathew, R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, R. L.


Burden, F. F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Campbell, Sir David
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Carr, Robert
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hope, Lord John
Neave, Airey


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'sh)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, John (Test)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, W. R. A, (Hull, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ormsby-Core, Hon. W. D.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dance, J. C. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Osborne, C.


Deedes, W. F.
Hyde, Montgomery
Page, R. G.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.


Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Joseph, Sir Keith
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Profumo, J. D.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Keegan, D.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ramsden, J. E.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, H. W.
Rawlinson, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.
Redmayne, M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fell, A.

Lagden, G. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Finlay, Graeme
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David




Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Robson-Brown, W.
Studholme, H. G.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Wall, Major Patrick


Roper, Sir Harold
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, W.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Russell, R. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Sharpies, R. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Webbe, Sir H.


Shepherd, William
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Soames, Capt. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spearman, A, C. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woollam, John Victor


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vosper, D. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy


Anderson, Frank
Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Boardman, H.
Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oram, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Bowles, F. G.
Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.


Boyd, T. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brookway, A. F.
Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holt, A. F.
Parker, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Paton, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Pearson, A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Peart, T. F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, E.


Champion, A. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Chapman, W. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Probert, A. R.


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Coldrick, W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reeves, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Daines, P.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Ledger, R. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, M.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.







Sylvester, C. O.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Taylor, Bernard, (Mansfield)
Warbey, W. N.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Watkins, T. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Richard


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.



Thornton, E.
West, D. G.
Woof, R. E.


Timmons, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Tomney, F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Willey, Frederick



Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer.


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, after "patent", to insert "or registered design".
I suggest to the Committee that it would be convenient to take with this Amendment the next two Government Amendments, to lines 3 and 6.
We have had a full debate on the subject of the treatment of patents in the Bill. The point of these Amendments is to put registered designs into the same case as patents, that is to say, that an agreement should be excluded from Part I of the Bill where restrictions are imposed only in respect of articles to which the design applies. There may be a difference of opinion in the Committee as to whether or not patents should be treated in this way but there should be, I hope, no difference that if that is the right way to deal with patents then registered designs should fall within the same treatment. Safeguards exist against agreements which have the effect of unduly restricting the use of design. Section 10 of the Registered Designs Act, 1949, provides for the granting of compulsory licences by the Registrar in appropriate circumstances.
I might add for the reassurance of hon. Members opposite that, in practice, the field of restriction here will be very small, first, because design is not "goods" within the definition of Clause 30 and, consequently, restrictions in respect of mere use of design would not in any event, quite apart from the Amendments, prima facie be affected by Part I. Industrial designs are usually registered by manufacturers and they would, in practice, rarely grant licences to other manufacturers to use the same design, but where such agreements exist it is right that they should be dealt with in principle on the same basis as patents.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 3, after "patent" insert "or registered design".

In line 6, at end insert:
or in respect of articles to which the registered design is applied, as the case may be".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert:
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to an agreement in the case of which all such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act relate exclusively—
(a) to the supply of goods by export from the United Kingdom;
(b) to the production of goods, or the application of any process of manufacture to goods, outside the United Kingdom;
(c) to the acquisition of goods to be delivered outside the United Kingdom and not imported into the United Kingdom for entry for home use; or
(d) to the supply of goods to be delivered outside the United Kingdom otherwise than by export from the United Kingdom.
This really raises no new point of principle. It is, in effect, a redrafting and clarification of what was originally in the Bill, but I think that it will be convenient if I explain what we are doing and what the Amendment is intended to achieve. First, it simplifies the wording of subsection (4). Secondly, and this is rather more important, it eliminates certain deficiencies in the drafting which, for example, excluded certain export agreements from the Bill altogether.
It excluded them through the rather unfortunate use of the words,
…no account shall be taken of…
By the use of those words an export agreement linked with an overseas agreement was outside the Bill altogether, including Clause 25. That was not our intention, but we can debate the merits of Clause 25 when we come to it.
The first thing that the Amendment does is to exclude from registration under Part 1 agreements relating exclusively to exports. Secondly, it excludes from registration altogether goods bought, sold or delivered outside the United Kingdom. That latter category of overseas trade was outside the old Monopolies Bill, and it is outside this Bill. It is outside because,


in the main, it raises issues of external commercial policy and, incidentally, would raise the most formidable difficulties in the face of any court or tribunal, because it would be very difficult to get information on the factors that it would be considering, which would be often matters affecting the interests of Commonwealth Governments or Colonial Governments and the like. So we followed the same principle as was followed in the original Monopolies Bill and left it right out.
The first class—that is agreements relating exclusively to export—are caught up again when we get to Clause 25, but I am not proposing that we should discuss that at this stage.

Mr. Wade: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Hynd. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper which was put down in the name of my hon. Friends and myself which would have amended or have sought to amend subsection (4) in its original form. I assume that Amendment will now fall, because I cannot move the Amendment to Clause 4 in its original form if the Amendment now put forward by the Minister is carried.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): That would be the effect, and I think it would be advisable in that case to discuss that Amendment with this one.

Mr. Wade: I wish to raise only one aspect of this problem. I quite understand the special circumstances of exporters and those dealing in goods for export. I am, however, concerned about the effect on our reputation where there are level tenders. I should be glad to know whether the Minister can give us any assurance on this point. It appears to me that the consequence of the proposed subsection (4, a) is that the agreement between manufacturers making goods for export whereby they quote the same price will be excluded from the provisions of Part I. The effect on our reputation could be very serious.
I think that the best example that I can quote—and one which is known to many hon. Members—is that of the contract which was lost when level tenders were quoted for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Authority. It was reported in a number of newspapers, but

I am quoting from my own local newspaper, the Huddersfield Examiner, of 20th March:
A senior official of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Authority said today that British heavy electrical equipment firms lost a big contract last year because they offered virtually identical tenders. The contract worth £(A)750,000 (£600,000), was awarded to a Belgian firm. The official said,…Normally in these circumstances we would have accepted the British tender because it is our policy to buy British. However, because of the practice of level tenders, it was decided to give the contract to the Belgian firm.' The Authority's annual report said,…During recent years this practice…has become common among British manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment.
I am concerned to ascertain whether this practice of quoting even prices will in any way be caught by the provisions of Part 1. It would appear to me that any goods that are made for export will be outside these provisions and that therefore agreements to a common price list which quote identical prices will not be registrable under Part 1.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member will notice that his next Amendment falls under the same classification. I should therefore tell him that it will not be called separately, so he may care to say something about that on this Amendment. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Scotstoun and other hon. Members—in page 6, line 23, at end add:
(5) Where an agreement relates to the delivery of goods partly outside the United Kingdom and partly within the United Kingdom the parties thereto may apply to the Board of Trade that no account should be taken of any restriction imposed by the agreement and in the event of the application being granted section twenty-five of this Act shall apply to the agreement.
(6) If an application under the last subsection is refused by the Board of Trade the parties to the agreement may appeal to the High Court against the Board's refusal and the decision of the court shall be final.—
will not be called separately, and if the hon. Member cares to discuss it with this Amendment, he will be in order in doing so.

Mr. Wade: The second Amendment really covers the same point, and I think I can save the time of the Committee by not referring to it.

Sir Lancelot Joynson - Hicks: In view of what you have said, Mr. Hynd, I should like to refer


to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend and myself in page 6, line 23, and to express the view that we hold, which is that the point contained in our Amendment has been admirably and handsomely met by the President of the Board in his Amendment. We should therefore like to express our appreciation to him, and to say that we would not move our Amendment, even if we were permitted to do so.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. With regard to the point raised about agreements on level tendering, if manufacturers or suppliers in this country enter into mutual restrictive arrangements as to supplies overseas, that would be within the compass of the Bill. I am referring to the Bill as a whole in the broad sense and not necessarily to Part 1.
Under the Bill as drafted, if it was exclusively related to exports, as this might be, then it would be drawn in under Clause 25. I am not proposing that we should debate that Clause at this stage, but that is where it is brought in. If it were a mixed agreement—I do not know whether this one was; one could conceive of circumstances where arrangements of that kind related partly to internal and partly to external trade—in that case, the whole agreement would be registrable under Part 1 of the Bill and would be dealt with in the ordinary way.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: To be clear on this matter, I should like to put it in my own words. The effects of this is that it limits registration to production or manufacture within the United Kingdom for United Kingdom consumption or user. If it is a restriction of that nature, then it is within the Bill. Does the Bill apply even though there may also be restrictions which effect exports under the same arrangement, so that the Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman really comes exclusively within the ambit of Clause 25? I hope that I have got that correct. I think that it is right, but I am not quite certain.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I said as clearly as I could that where we have an export arrangement, which is the point that we are considering, if it is inextricably linked with internal mutually restrictive arrange

ments which are caught by Clause 5 of the Bill, then it is registrable under Part I, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and would in the ordinary way come up for consideration in front of the Court. It does sometimes happen, and may quite often happen, that firms have restrictions which relate exclusively to exports, or they might elect to sever their arrangements so that the export part becomes quite separate. Where we have the export part quite separate but mutually restrictive within the general meaning of the Bill, it would not fall under this Part of the Bill but under Clause 25.

Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(4) This part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the furnishing of unpatented information for the purpose of facilitating the manufacture of goods or the application of any process thereto which imposes no such restrictions as are described in section five of this Act except in respect of those goods or to any restrictive covenant incidental to the assignment of any business or goodwill.
I move this Amendment for the purpose of obtaining certain clarifications and some assurances from my right hon. Friend as to the subject matter. This Amendment deals with what is described as "unpatented information," but it is more generally and commonly known as "know-how." One might not define know-how as being necessarily information of a secret process, or anything of that kind, but it is usually the result of intensive work and research. One company or a group of companies may, as a result of their experience, have methods which are more effective, and arrangements are made for sharing this information.
I say at once that I appreciate that the form of the Amendment is wide. It may well be that my right hon. Friend will say that while he might be prepared to consider the matter, he could not accept the Amendment. The importance of the matter is that in the case of patent agreements, as we have already found, provision already exists for the exclusion of licences from the purview of this Bill. It is common nowadays for there to be attached to those patent agreements an agreement for the exchange of know-how. Therefore, if nothing were done about it in a case where the only


addition to patent agreements between the two groups of companies or organisations was the provision of know-how, we would find that it came within the Bill as it stands. That is unnecessary and undesirable because the know-how in those cases is merely being used as an addendum to the patented material.
Another case has been brought to my attention, and it is an important one. It is where a group of British companies is entitled, under an agreement with a foreign company or companies, to information of this character—to unpatented information—from abroad, and those companies are often limited in the use which they can make of it. Again it is quite clear that, unless something is done about it, those companies would be liable to have their agreements torn up, and that might create a difficult situation over relations with foreign companies.
Those are two examples. I have been told of several others, but I shall not delay the Committee with them. In consideration of those matters, I ask my right hon. Friend to say that between now and the Report stage he would be willing to meet those who are familiar with these technical and complicated matters, or to allow someone on his behalf to do so, and let them explain to him these special cases. On that assumption, and on that basis, I shall certainly not ask my right hon. Friend to agree to a wholesale exclusion of know-how.
Finally, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I ought to say that it is clear, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm it, that even under the Bill as it stands a mere agreement for the sale or exchange of know-how, with nothing else except a transaction for the sale or use or letting or licensing of unpatented information, would not come within the wording of the Bill. It is only when it is combined with other matters that it does so, and that, of course, is just where the complication comes in. It is a difficult and highly complicated matter, and all that I would be entitled to ask for is that the matter should have further consideration. I know that my hon. Friends agree with me in that respect.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for the very clear and moderate way in which he has moved this Amendment, which deals with a difficult and important subject. I shall start by emphasising what he said at the end of his remarks, namely, that this Bill does not apply to know-how agreements as such. Know-how is outside the scope of this Bill, and it is worth recording that because there is a good deal of public misunderstanding on this subject.
Nevertheless, know-how agreements are often, and perhaps even generally, linked closely with a number of other arrangements. We cannot deal with them in the same way as we deal with patents or registered designs. The reason was brought out by the arguments which we all advanced when we were discussing that specific case, namely, that the patent law contains within itself provisions for the protection of the public. One might debate whether the provisions are right or sufficiently extensive, but they are there.
There is no such law relating to know-how. A patent is, so to speak, a monopoly in a certain respect, but is something which is at large. Where, it seems to me, the know-how agreement is related exclusively to patented goods it would appear that it is excluded quite safely under subsection (3) of this Clause, with which we were dealing before.
Whatever else we do, we cannot adopt a principle which would say that any price ring or exclusive dealing arrangement would be exempted from the Bill if it contained within it some know-how provisions. That would plainly be so wide as to give an obvious loophole to anyone who wanted to bring his agreement outside the purview of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court.
Nevertheless although I think the wording of the Bill is satisfactory, I appreciate that there are many complex arrangements between industry on these matters. Therefore, I shall be happy to fall in with the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend. If anyone has any questions or difficulties in this respect, and if they will come and consult with us at the Board of Trade between now and the Report stage, we shall be happy to listen to any representations made to us.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am largely in agreement with the approach of the


President of the Board of Trade to this problem and with what he has said. As the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) indicated, the obvious danger is that, by simply attaching know-how information to an agreement, it would be possible to drive a coach and four through the Bill. The obvious difficulty is to find any kind of wording or provision which would enable a know-how provision to be outside the Bill whilst being attached to something which is within the Bill. That is the crucial problem which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to face in his Amendment and which, as he frankly indicated and as we know he would, he has not solved.
Know-how provisions of their own part, as the President of the Board of Trade said, are outside the Bill because they are on their own. The problem is the know-how provision attached to something which is within the Bill. I should have thought that this is practically an insoluble problem. It is extremely difficult because it is almost, in logic, a contradiction in terms. We agree with the approach of the President and the one thing to which we are most strongly opposed, as I am sure he would be, is any arrangement that would enable a know-how provision to provide a let-out from Clause 5.

Sir L. Heald: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(4) This part of this Act does not apply to any agreement the purpose of which is to recommend the adoption of standards drawn up by the British Standards Institution.
The Amendment explains in a few words its exact purpose. My submission about this is that the sort of agreement contemplated in the Amendment is one which could not possibly be found to be contrary to the public interest and, therefore, should not be subject to the requirement of registration. For many years, the British Standards Institution has been recognised by the Government, by industry and by the public as the responsible authority laying down standards, producing specifications as to the quality,

dimensions, performance, and other characteristics of industrial products.
I have seen it said that the Institution proceeds upon two basic principles, first, that the standards shall be in accordance with the needs of industry and fulfil a generally recognised want, and, secondly, that the interests of both producer and consumer shall be considered. I imagine that both sides of the Committee would agree that it is highly salutary, when one realises the immense importance of quality, that people should be permitted and encouraged to agree together that there should be at any rate that minimum standard which is laid down by the Institution. For these reasons, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that this is a reasonable proposal to make and that this type of agreement should be outside the requirement of registration.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I readily accept the principle of this Amendment. I think the Committee will agree that it would be an unfortunate result of these Clauses if we were to make registrable and subject to examination every arrangement for fixing standards under the British Standards Institution. That, I think, would be to defeat the objects which Parliament had in mind when we established the Institution. It would also create an intolerable burden for the Registrar and the Court.
I am prepared to accept this in principle, and I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) that he withdraws the Amendment, for we may have to do a little redrafting of it, for two reasons. One is that it does not go quite far enough. It is possible under the Bill as drawn that the actual association for the formulation of the standards might be registrable, and I should like to exclude that too.
Secondly, these standards are of two kinds. One kind is concerned with design, and is very wide and useful in the engineering industry where, for instance, it is agreed that nuts should be of a certain gauge. The other is concerned with quality. The kind related to design presents no particular problem, but I want to consider whether we ought, perhaps, to limit the exclusion of agreements not to produce below a certain quality or not to produce above a certain


quality. I think those ought to be registrable. Anyhow, I should like to give consideration to it, and I shall be happy to consult my hon. and learned Friend on the subject. Subject to that, we are prepared, in principle, to accept the general idea of the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I appreciate the reply which my right hon. Friend has given and the difficulty in which he finds himself, but I would point out that merely to lay down that a standard of the British Standards Institution be the standard which we should reach goes not nearly far enough. There is a number of other institutes and other specifications covering a very wide range of industry which ought to be included in this exemption from registration. For example, the Government themselves, in a number of Departments, lay down standards which have to be accepted for a very wide range of products in industry. Apart from those, there are the British Pharmacopoeia and institutions such as the C.C.I. and A.I.D., and a number of requirements which come within the ambit of the exclusion which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) seeks. The matter is not quite as simple as it would appear on the surface.

Mr. William Shepherd: We may be in danger of cluttering the Court to an extraordinary extent, as may be understood when we remember that the B.S.I. alone has over 2,300 committees sitting upon various standards and specifications. Remembering that, one may have some idea of the danger one may be letting oneself in for in attempting to register such agreements. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this matter closely between now and Report so that he may eliminate the possibility of that danger.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Like the President of the Board of Trade, we on this side of the Committee are in agreement with the principle of the Amendment, but, as we were when we were considering the last Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), we are concerned lest this Amendment should give scope for escape from the provisions of Clause 5 and that its effect may be

beyond that intended by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield). Once we get on to exclusions, we are on a very slippery slope. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) indicated, we shall be in difficulty if we are to take into consideration any agreement in which there is any reference to standards. The object of the Amendment is exclusion from Clause 5, and we must take care to avoid the obvious danger that we exclude from registration any and every agreement simply because it contains provisions relating to standards. The standards might be of the lowest and the reference to them the briefest.
It was because of that danger that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put down an Amendment to the Amendment, to stipulate that the Amendment should apply only to an agreement the "sole" purpose of which was recommendation of the adoption of standards drawn up by the British Standards Institution. I am sure that the President, when he considers the redrafting of the Amendment, will have that matter very much in mind.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I shall, of course, consider the points which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has made during my general consideration of how to redraft this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) said, this is not altogether a simple matter. There are grave dangers in extending this proposal too widely. It would be quite possible so to draft the provision that it would exclude from the Bill agreements which, I am quite certain, my hon. Friends have not in mind. I think all of us, on both sides of the Committee, are very anxious that, in our proper anxiety to deal with cases which properly should be excluded, we should not open a loophole which would allow other cases, which ought not to be excluded, to slip outside the provisions of the Bill and of the general requirement to register.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said something a moment ago which I should like him to clarify for me so that I may understand him clearly. He said that associations for the formation


of these standards might be excluded. I do not know exactly what he had in mind. I should be grateful if he would amplify that a little.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It may be that the getting together for the purpose of formulating a standard may be registrable. It is a quite complicated process, quite generally followed, by which the consumers also are brought into consultation. That is rather a distinguishing feature of the British Standards Institution and puts it very often in a rather different category from some other arrangements of this kind. The mere process of coming together for the purpose of formulating the standard might itself be registrable, and I am certain that that is not our intention.

Mr. Nield: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Robert Boothby: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(4) This part of this Act does not apply to a restriction contained in an Agreement made by catchers of fish who are remunerated wholly or substantially by a share of the catch or a share of the proceeds of the catch or an Agreement between Associations of such catchers or Associations consisting inter alia of such catchers or between any such Association or Associations and such catchers.
The purpose of the Amendment is very simple; it is to bring associations of share fishermen—that is, fishermen who earn their living by sharing the profits from their boats instead of by fixed wages—into line with trade unions. I am not in the least wedded to the terms of the Amendment and should be quite ready to accept any suggestion which my right hon. Friend cares to make in drafting an Amendment to bring this class of wage earners into line with members of trade unions. I see no difference between them. In imposing any restrictions, such an association of share fishermen would impose them for the purposes of protecting the conditions of employment and the remuneration of its members in precisely the same way as a trade union; there is no difference.
If they are not excluded, a difficulty will arise. If there were a collusive agreement on the part of the buyers—for example, if the buyers attempted to

gang up on an association, as they might conceivably do, by means of an agreement between themselves—and if the fishermen's association then pleaded that agreement as a defence of any restrictions it might have imposed, I think the association should at least be entitled to compel the production of the relevant information and documents about any such collusive agreement. As the Bill is now drafted, it will have to register an agreement, and if it then pleads, as defence, another agreement, it will be in a very difficult situation.
In the circumstances, it seems to me that by far the best way of getting out of this difficulty is to remove bona fide associations of share fishermen—in any terms which the President may decide to set down at a later stage—from the ambit of the Bill. No question arises here of imposing restrictive practices on anybody for the sake of restriction, or of increased profits.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Let me make one point quite clear at the beginning: the method whereby the fishermen receive their money, their wages, is not registrable, whether it is by a partnership scheme or a co-operative scheme or any other scheme. It is entirely a matter for them and, as far as I can see, it is right outside the scope of the Bill.
The effect of the Amendment would be to take fish and the fishing industry clean out of the Bill. There is no doubt about it; that is the effect it would have. The fishing industry is in many ways a highly controlled industry. We have the Herring Industries Act and the Sea Fish Industry Act of 1951, which are very comprehensive and which—I say it in no offensive way—are restrictive arrangements; but they are arrangements which Parliament has itself approved and they are therefore outside the Bill. Once Parliament has approved an arrangement, however restrictive upon the consumer, whether it puts up the price of fish or not, it is outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
The Amendment would go far beyond that. It would say that in this industry restrictive arrangements not expressly authorised by Statute, not approved by Parliament, but adopted by the industry itself, would be free, unchallenged and unregistrable, although they might be


exactly comparable with the same kind of practice in many other industries.
I have listened, as I always listen, to my hon. Friend's persuasive speech with interest, but I am bound to say that his Amendment would open too wide a gap and that too many fish would get through.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I was very much relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The legitimate sharing arrangements of the fishermen would be covered by the exclusion of partnerships. Our difficulty—and we on this side of the Committee were opposed to the Amendment—was the arrangement in it for excluding agreements between associations, even associations which included other than catchers. As a result, it covered the whole industry and it would take the whole fishing industry clean outside the Bill.

Sir R. Boothby: I thought that perhaps the second part of the Amendment went a little too far. In view of the smashing retort of the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 9, leave out from "any" to "restriction" in line 17.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Nield: I should like to raise one point and ask one question about the Clause. Would it not be thought right to exclude from the requirement of registration agreements which have been considered by the Monopolies Commission and approved, or approved by the Board of Trade after negotiation?
It is always helpful to give an illustration. One industry—and I will not identify it—was inquired into by the Monopolies Commission; it operated a common prices practice. After three years of very hard work for those engaged in the industry, in preparing their case, the Commission reported and recommended that the common prices practice operated, or was likely to operate, against the public interest. The Commission went on to say that it saw no objection to the trade association issuing a price list recommending

certain minimum prices but laying down no sanctions. After those recommendations the industry amended the practice so as to accord with them. It went further; it approached the Board of Trade, who had no objection to that practice in its amended form being carried on.
The point about which I seek information is this: is it not proper to exclude from the requirement of registration those practices which have already been inquired into and approved? I submit that, on the face of it, it would be very hard on an industry to have to go through the requirement of registration and to go before the Court when it had presented its case to the Commission over many months and the Commission had reached its conclusions.
May I foresee one answer? Later in the Bill we shall be dealing with Clause 24, whereby agreements may be registered and brought before the court even if they have already been condemned by the Commission. An industry may seek to reopen the matter. As my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree, there is all the difference in the world between appealing against a condemnation, which is frequently done, and appealing against an acquittal, which is very seldom done in our law. Once a practice has been found by those responsible to be in the public interest, I submit that the industry concerned should not be required to go through the machinery of the Bill but should be excluded from its ambit.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: When the Committee was considering the effect of subsection (2) of this Clause, I think it was generally felt that a great many questions arose under that subsection which were not entirely answered by the President's treatment of them. They are complex questions. If I might respectfully say so, the right hon. Gentleman made quite clear what he intended the effect of the Clause to be, but I think it would be very unfortunate if the Committee were to part with the Clause without satisfying itself a little more thoroughly that the intentions which the right hon. Gentleman expressed as desirable are implemented by the Clause.
The effect which the Clause as it stands would have is that the Act is not to apply "an agreement for the supply of goods, not being an agreement under which


restrictions in respect of transactions of the same description are accepted by two or more parties". The objective in the amended Clause I regard as a perfectly legitimate and proper one. I believe the intention is to exclude the sole agency agreement to include which would unmistakably cause more trouble than it would be worth. I think there is a reasonable objective here, and I also entirely accept that the very last wish of the President is to allow loopholes to occur in the provisions of the Bill more than can possibly be avoided; but, when that has been said, the effect of the Clause as it stands appears to give rise to a very substantial loophole.
I desire to mention the case, which has been referred to already in this connection, where A, B and C enter an agreement among themselves covering the terms upon which either all of them or one of them enter into a supply agreement with D. The whole point is that as the Bill stands, if the Clause remains in this form there would in such a case be a registrable agreement between A, B and C in respect of the conditions which were to govern the supply to D; yet the agreement with D would expressly not be registrable. That seems to me to give rise to all sorts of possible difficulties. In the instance I am describing, where A, B and C in a registrable agreement have decided on the terms on which goods are to be supplied to D, the Court is to have power, having determined the fact that the agreement between A, B and C is registrable, to make an order that the parties to it—A, B and C—are not to give effect to or enforce the agreement. That is provided in Clause 15. The agreement, by order of the Court, can be made unenforceable.
I am only seeking an explanation of all this. I should have thought the consequences were very remarkable and of a kind certainly calculated to dislocate trade and commercial relations to an extent much more than is desired. If in the case I have instanced a supply agreement is made with retailer D which, under the Bill, is expressly not registrable, but which stems from or results from an agreement by A, B and C, what is the result when the Court says that latter agreement cannot be enforced? The consequences might well be very serious. I think the consequences in this particular event would be particularly serious from the

point of view of the obstacles which would be imposed on trade and upon legitimate arrangements for supply.
If the right hon. Gentleman has erred, as I think he has in this instance, I am bound to confess that he seems to have erred in the direction which hon. Members opposite most keenly dislike and in this context with a fair amount of reason. I think, however, that it is reasonable to expect that in the case which I have described the practical outcome would be that far fewer agreements would tend to be registered than if this loophole were not provided. The Court, having determined that a certain agreement is contrary to public policy, has discretion to make an order. When the result of making an Order is to leave all kinds of individual retailers hanging in the air, as it were—parties to an agreement which is not itself registrable, but which stems from an agreement which the Court has determined to be contrary to the public interest—the Court may well be reluctant to exercise its discretion to make an order. There may be resulting from that situation sufficient grounds to justify the Court—which has a wide discretion in the matter—concluding that it is undesirable to make an order.
What I am doing in connection with this matter is, frankly, not to offer a solution. I am not at all sure that this is not one of the several problems confronting the Government in this Bill which are as nearly insoluble as anything which the wit of man can devise. I think it is the most frightfully difficult thing to tackle. I should have thought that what was necessary in order that a useful attempt should be made to deal with the difficulty was an express provision to deal with supply agreements which are made where one party to the supply agreement has entered it as a consequence of, or partly as a consequence of, arrangements he has made with others in a registrable agreement.
I think it needs quite explicit and separate treatment if the whole matter is not to be left in a state of confusion. As I have endeavoured to indicate, I feel the most likely practical consequences of this kind of provision are that the Registrar will be reluctant to register, or to allow to be registered, and the Court will be reluctant to make orders in respect of, agreements where, as a consequence of


registration and of orders being made, there may be serious dislocation affecting supply agreements which are explicitly exempt from registration under the Bill. It is a complicated and difficult point. I only ventured to intervene at this stage of the deliberations of the Committee because I rather thought that the President, contrary to his intention, had fabricated a really gigantic loophole in all probability in his amended subsection (2).

Mr. Philip Bell: I remember that when we were discussing the appropriate Clause 5 (4) it was specifically mentioned that the very sending round of a price list by an association was "specifically recommending," and, indeed, such would be implied to be a recommendation in relation to a class of goods. This, the Committee agreed, was one of the things that should be stopped. The point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) mentioned is one that I do not think the Committee had in mind when we discussed that Clause. I feel that it is a little hard, when an association has been told, "This is one of the things you can do," to find that we are now passing a Bill overruling what the Monopolies Commission said, after considering the whole position so recently, might properly be done in respect of a specific industry.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Perhaps I may reply first to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), and referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), regarding arrangements which have been inquired into by the Monopolies Commission. It is quite a difficult point to deal with. Arrangements of that kind fall into two categories: those which are, broadly speaking, approved, and those which were disapproved by the Commission; though very often things are rather blurred together because they might have been approved, subject to certain conditions and so on.
As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester, the ones that have been disapproved will not immediately be revived. It would be a remarkable result of this Bill if the moment it was passed everything condemned by the Monopolies

Commission should be suddenly revived and become fully operative. I do not think anyone would urge that we should seek that sort of result. Equally, we cannot say that they will not be revived. There is a new law on the subject; new criteria have been set up making different presumptions, and we certainly cannot say that they should not be given the opportunity at some appropriate stage to come forward and say, "We think we fall into one of these particular categories in the Clause. We wish to argue our case." Though we do not wish to see the whole machine flooded with the applications to start with, we shall later be discussing provisions which will enable that sort of thing to be done.
If we are to do that for the ones which have been disapproved, I do not quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we should rule out of consideration all those which may have been approved. After all, the law on the subject has been changed, or will have been changed, and I assume that Parliament will have laid down what criteria it thinks should be imposed, where the presumption should lie, and so forth.
I think the fact that a full investigation has been held into this and arguments fully set out in the careful reports of the Monopolies Commission is a powerful argument in favour of these cases. Moreover, there is this further consideration, that the Board of Trade has some control over the order and timing in which these matters are brought forward. We can discuss later whether it is appropriate or not to have it, but I think it would be the commonsense view that one would not rush before the Court—unless one was very much urged to do so—with a large number of matters which, after careful investigation, someone had said did not operate against the public interest. I do not think such cases would have a high priority. I do not think we should be right in excluding from the Bill any agreement, because at some stage it had been considered by the Commission, whether it had been wholly disapproved or approved, or approved subject to conditions.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) raised the important and difficult point about the new drafting of Clause 6. As I said at the time we were considering that Amendment, I am not


wholly wedded to these words. We are agreed about the objective which we should have in mind and, in considering any possible redrafting, I shall certainly take into account the detailed arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He took the point that where three suppliers came mutually to a restrictive arrangement it would be a registrable arrangement. There would be two or more of them making restrictive arrangements for the same kind of transaction, and there is no doubt that it is registrable.
As the Bill is drafted, it appears that the agreement between them and the person supplied is registrable. This was mentioned earlier in our discussions when I said it was for consideration whether we should not concentrate our attention upon the root agreement, that is to say, when A, B and C agree together that they will supply to everyone at a common price. That is plainly something which should be registered and examined by the Court. I am a little anxious that we should not register every agreement between three persons—as it may sometimes be—and the retailer. If that is done, we are likely to have a great rush of cases for registration and the principles which govern the individual sales by two people jointly to someone else will be precisely the same as governed the root agreement when they all came together and said, "This will be our policy."
These are complex and difficult subjects. I am not now trying to do any drafting, but I am saying that these are the issues to which the hon. Gentleman, in a most interesting and informative speech, was directing the attention of the Committee. I make this reply to indicate that we have them well in mind and will take them into account in any redrafting which may be done.

5.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is a very important point. We are a little concerned about the Amendment itself, and as the President will consider the drafting it is rather important that we should get our ideas about it quite clear and make sure that we understand each other and know exactly what the President has in mind before he comes to the drafting.
I am here concerned, as I have been with all the Amendments to Clause 6,

with the loopholes in the Bill. From a business point of view, I fully understand the difficulties where A, B and C enter into a contract for the supply of goods to D. The question arises regarding the two conceptions in the same agreement, one conception of an agreement between A, B and C, and the agreement between three of them, either jointly or separately, with D. As I see it, this is the crux of the matter. Obviously, the agreement between A, B and C should be registrable. That, obviously, is the intention. If A. B and C were jointly in the venture and agreed to sell to D, in that case it should be included in the Bill. I think the answer is that if we do not include it in the Bill we are running a very grave risk.
The whole position is opened up. All one would have to do in order to escape the provisions of Clause 5, would be to say, "In our association we will sever our agreements to deal with separate items if need be." Where there is an agreement between any member dealing with the supply of goods to another party, then they are taken outside the Bill altogether. That is the danger as I see it. Somehow or other there must be a severance between what the President has called the root agreement and the sales agreement. Unless that severance is achieved we are simply driving a coach and four through the Bill.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am as anxious as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) not to open up a loophole here, and we shall look at the drafting of the Clause very carefully. It was not in my mind that merely by importing a fourth party it would be possible to get round the provisions of the Bill. What I had in mind was that what really matters is the mutually restrictive arrangements reached between a ring of suppliers—agreements laying down a policy of selling at common prices, or only to certain people. That is something which should properly be brought before the Court and judged upon its merits and criteria.
I am assuming that we are here dealing with the case of persons undertaking a joint venture. It would be a pity if, on each occasion when a joint sale or


arrangement of that sort came forward, it should be registered and the whole argument gone over again. I can see chaos resulting if that device were adopted. Therefore, I suggest that in redrafting the Bill we should seek a way of cutting out most of the arrangements which would be imparted by registering each transaction, while not in any way weakening the provision that the main agreement should in all cases be registered.

Sir John Barlow: I am not entirely satisfied with the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) in relation to those industries which have appeared before the Monopolies Commission since it began its work three or four years ago. It is a known fact that it has meant a tremendous amount of work for the industries involved, and that it has taken time for the Commission to investigate these subjects. It has arrived at varying conclusions, saying that certain arrangements were bad, and others were good.
Arising out of the Commission's findings, arrangements have been made with the Board of Trade to ensure that certain industries should drop certain practices. Although the Bill will override those decisions, it is to be presumed that the arrangements arrived at were fairly good and common-sense arrangements on the whole, and I suggest that an enormous amount of work would be involved if those industries which had already been under fire during the last four years were investigated again. A tremendous amount of time and energy is required in relation to these inquiries, and before the Bill reaches a later stage I urge the President to see if he cannot do something in this matter. We are anxious that industry should produce and export more, and not devote the time of its chief executives to matters of this kind.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not want the impression to be gained that all hon. Members on this side of the Committee support the view originally expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield). I should take very grave exception to any provision which expressly excluded

certain classes of persons for all time. That would be the effect of the Amendment. It would be a most regrettable action, and I am very surprised that my hon. and learned Friend has suggested it.
There is no permanence about the decisions taken by the Court. It may be that after a period of years those who have had their agreements disapproved can bring them forward again and, in different economic circumstances, have them approved. It would clearly be quite wrong if, having set up this idea of flexibility, an absolute rigidity were introduced in respect of a certain number of practices by a certain number of firms. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that there is by no means unanimity of view on this side of the Committee, and that many of us would take very grave exception to any exclusion of certain classes of persons from the provisions of the Statute.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think that there is any real disagreement about this matter. From what my hon. Friends have said, there may be some difference of emphasis. No one suggests that certain classes of persons should be excluded for all time, although that is the effect of the Amendment. I think the general view is that nobody should be exempted for all time. At the same time, there is general agreement that practices which have been disapproved should not be taken first before the new Court.
It may be that we can say that there is not so much urgency to deal with cases which have recently received very full examination, but I would ask the Committee to remember that an industry itself may sometimes wish a case to come forward, especially in respect of an agreement which has previously been disapproved. It may even wish to do so in other cases. From time to time, especially when some of the earlier decisions of the Court have established a line of precedents, an industry may wish to be cleared in respect of a certain agreement and have a certainty introduced into the matter. I think the best thing to do is to leave the Bill as it stands, and not try to exempt a particular category for all time.

Sir Peter Roberts: One of the difficulties I foresee is the trouble which various industries will have to go to in order to register agreements, even though the Registrar does not propose to take their cases for three, four or even five years. Is it not possible to reconsider this matter in the light of Clause 7, under which it might be possible to give the Registrar power to exclude certain agreements for a specified period? We want to avoid industries having to go through all the rigmarole of registration, and so on, when it is probable that the Court will not investigate them for a number of years.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is not for me to say what would be in order for discussion upon the next Clause, but I think we should have to stick to the arrangements which are in the Bill with regard to registration, namely, that the categories for registration would be laid down by Orders moved by the Board of Trade. Those Orders are debatable in the House, and I imagine that many of these arguments could be advanced in such debates.

Mr. Jay: I should like to ask two further questions so that the Committee can be clear what it is doing, and also that it is doing what it wants to do. My questions relate to the connection between subsection (2) and the individual resale price maintenance which we come to later on. When I first read subsection (2) I found it quite unintelligible, and when I read it further times I thought that it was concerned with individual resale price maintenance.
6.0 p.m.
Suppose an ordinary case of a one-man factory, the owner of which makes a resale price maintenance agreement with one retailer which is mutual in the sense that there are reciprocal benefits from the manufacturer. Would that agreement be excluded from the Bill by subsection (2)? Secondly, can the President of the Board of Trade assure us that if such agreements as were discussed earlier, made by trade associations, by which a number of producers or suppliers make an agreement that they will all enforce individually resale price maintenance, that such an agreement would remain within the scope of Clause 5 and that he is not inadvertently pushing it out of the Bill by Clause 16?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer to the first question is "No" and to the second "Yes." The first case is of a straightforward deal between supplier and retailer, and there would not be two or more persons engaged in restrictions in regard to the same kind of transaction. We could not register every deal between a supplier and a retailer. We should get into an impossible position.
If two manufacturers arranged together that they would both maintain their prices, we would have two or more persons entering into a mutual restriction as in the case of a trade association, which is an elaboration of this second case. That would be a registrable agreement, because it would be a mutual' restriction within the purposes of Clause 5.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(CLASSES OF AGREEMENTS TO BE REGISTERED.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to "every".

The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): It might be for the convenience of the Committee to take this Amendment together with the Amendments in page 6, line 27, leave out subsection (2); in page 6, line 27, leave out from "force" to end of line 41, and insert:
within three months from the passing of this Act";
and in page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Jay: The purpose of the group of Amendments is to achieve what the President of the Board of Trade professes to be the object of the Government, to secure reasonable speed and efficiency in the operation of the Bill. We are seeking that the registration of agreements shall take place not by a succession of classes ordained by the Board of Trade over perhaps an interminable number of years, but simultaneously, at some definite date after the passing of the Bill.
We are assuming that the President's scheme is that no agreements are prohibited outright, except for resale price


maintenance. I want the Committee to note that it does not necessarily follow that we have to fall back on the elaborate process of registration in a series of classes or stages over a long period of years. It would be over a long period, admittedly that individual agreements would be brought before the Restrictive Practices Court. But they would all have to be registered early within a definite period.
I see two advantages in early simultaneous registration. When I say "early" it may be three months. I think it is agreed by all that publicity is desirable in this matter of restrictive practices, and it is partly for that reason that practices which have to be registered may be cancelled and abandoned without waiting for registration. I mentioned on Second Reading the case of a trade association which had abandoned the attempt it was making to stifle an independent firm.
There is also the case, of which we have had information, of the tobacco retail trade. I believe that it is considering at this moment whether or not to abandon the restrictions which are preventing individual tobacco manufacturers from selling their cigarettes at all. The issue may well depend upon whether it is clear that registration of this type of agreement will take place at an early date. If it emerges that this or any other type of restrictive practice is in doubt, some of these associations will decide to go on for the time and not to worry much about it.
In addition to that, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Monopolies Commission in its Report on Collective Discrimination, which gave rise to the Bill, clearly envisaged that registration should be simultaneous and not long-drawn out. The Commission pointed out that there could be outright prohibition, or the other and weaker procedure ensuring a measure of publicity and supervision and requiring traders falling within the scope of the law to register, so as to prohibit them, if it was found that they were not acting in the public interest.
The only objection I can see to this reasonable proposal is that the Government will say, "If all agreements are to be registered that are within the scope of the Act within three mouths of its passing,

the Registrar will be snowed under and there will be a state of chaos. The machinery will break down."
I am not convinced by that argument. I do not think it would be impracticable for the Registrar to operate in that way. He would not be bound to have his whole register made up in its final and perfected form so that every detail was open to early and ready inspection by the public at some early date. It could be left to him and he would discover in practice how long it would take to reach that state. The obligation would be on the parties to agreements to carry out registration by the due date.
I am reminded, amongst other parallels, of an occasion during the war when some of us in the Ministry of Supply and other Departments had to schedule a vast variety of industries under the Essential Work Orders in a very few months. It was said that it could not be done, that there would be chaos, and that it was quite impossible because it involved scheduling which was a complicated procedure in itself. It was done for a large number of industries without undue hitches or accidents. I think that other cases could be quoted. I do not believe that the physical feat of registration would be impracticable.
If I may, I would quote the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech on Second Reading as evidence of that. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that he gave an undertaking at the end of his speech, which for some reason the President refrained from giving at the beginning of the debate. We hope that some of the encouragement and advice we were able to put forward on that day helped the Government to make up their minds. The Parliamentary Secretary then said:
We shall propose to make a very early registration of common prices, level tendering and collective discrimination, which together form the great bulk of restrictive trade practices, and we shall hope to get those agreements registered within about three months of the making of that Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2055.]
I hope that the Committee will note that the hon. and learned Gentleman there said that this group represented the great bulk of restrictive trade practices. Nevertheless, he assured us that the Board of Trade hoped that they could all



be registered within three months of the making of the Order. I do not know exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by "great bulk," but if he meant that, say, 85 per cent.—if one can measure restrictive practices in that way—were within that group and could be registered within three months, it should be reasonably possible to get the whole lot registered in a slightly longer period.
On this Amendment, therefore, we should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—we would have liked the President to have done so had he been here—to reaffirm his very important assertion on Second Reading that the Government are going to make a very early registration of those types of practices—common prices, level tendering and collective discrimination.

Sir James Hutchison: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee how he proposes to deal with subsection (5) under his Amendment—the question of statutory instruments coming before the House. Does he propose that that machinery should disappear or would it be used within three months, and would not that cause considerable congestion?

Mr. Jay: We are proposing that there should be no phasing of the different types of agreement at all, and the question presumably would not arise of Parliament approving the President's decision to group the practices in successive classes.
I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary, first of all, whether he would reaffirm this undertaking, and also whether he would explain to us just what he meant by making a very early registration of these groups. Does "very early" mean within one month of the passing of the Bill, or what does it mean? It is no consolation to know that the practices will be registered within three months of the Board of Trade making its Order if, in fact, that Order is not to be made until a long period after the Bill is passed. Can he give us this assurance? In view of his statement that it is perfectly practicable to get the bulk of the practices registered in that period, can he tell us why we cannot go the whole hog, have the whole lot registered within a reasonable time, and thereby very greatly accelerate the speed, the efficiency and the publicity which ought to follow on the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I am as anxious as any hon. Member to see the registration and investigation of these agreements proceeded with as speedily as possible, but I am not entirely happy about the consequences that might follow from this series of Amendments. It is possible that the number of agreements that would have to be registered at the same time would rather clog the machine. Furthermore, as a result of these Amendments, no affirmative Resolution of Parliament would be required, and to that extent Parliament would lose control over orders for registration.

Mr. Jay: Surely, in those circumstances, Parliament would decide here and now—today—that they should all be registered forthwith, so I do not think there would be any need for Parliament to take further decisions.

Mr. Wade: I appreciate that. I was going to say that hon. Members who support the Amendment may consider that that is not a serious matter.
A further consequence is that the Amendment might affect accountability. We had an interesting discussion on Clause 1, and I and my colleagues and other hon. Members felt that the replies from the Minister were not entirely satisfactory on that subject. It appears to me that if there are no orders for registration—that it is all to be done en bloc—it might have the unintended consequence of limiting still further the degree of accountability by the Minister, and we may find that the questions we are entitled to ask are restricted further than they already will be as a result of the wording of Clause 1.
I know that that is not the fault of those moving the Amendment, but it is a consequence which we must keep in mind. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider that point as well as the one I mentioned earlier, namely, the danger that there may be rather a flood of agreements registered all at once.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to associate myself with the apprehensions which have been expressed about the congestion which it is feared might result to the Registrar and his staff. That apprehension I entirely share, but there is another aspect of a practical character. Speaking as a professional myself, I think


it likely that the majority of parties to agreements, having read the Bill and having been made aware of the fact that it had been enacted, would consult their advisers as to the steps that would be necessary for them to take to register, or consider registration of, such practices as they might be operating. They would seek to have the Act interpreted to them in the light of the actual circumstances in their own particular case in order to decide whether such arrangements as they might have were registrable.
That is something which, if thrown completely and simultaneously to the professional bodies in this country, would not be capable of achievement—within the limited time which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) anticipates—with any hope of success at all. The result will be that the various parties in question will be advised to register every arrangement they have so as to be on the safe side, and the register will be cluttered up with a lot of unnecessary detail when, quite likely, a lot of the arrangements are not covered by the Act at all.
I therefore hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment, but will allow the matter to proceed in an orderly and respectable way, so that the parties concerned can have proper advice and the register can be properly compiled. After all, power is retained by the President to call up at whatever speed he likes, and if the digestion of the machine can cope with the flood more speedily than was expected the President can always make his orders with greater rapidity and in quick succession.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The argument to which we have just listened is bad reasoning. Surely it is the other way about. This clause is unnecessarily detailed and is cluttered up by a mass of verbiage which is damaging to its real purpose. In my submission, the Amendments which we are discussing will simplify the Clause and will aid the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act, and indeed will simplify the register. As it stands, the Clause is obscured. Therefore, the words sought to be left out should be omitted.
The Clause is unnecessary and undesirable in its present terms, in view of the terms of the two preceding Clauses.

The other day we heard a lot about the preceding Clauses, and surely the mass of detail which clutters up this Clause should be left out in the way suggested by these Amendments.
What is required is not a redefinition of the agreements which are registrable; that is done by Clause 5. Nor do we want a redefinition of excepted agreements; that is done by Clause 6. But here, in Clause 7, we have a whole lot of new formulae and definitions, which, if they are to be in the Bill at all, should have been in either Clause 5 or Clause 6.
Instead of the simplicity and clarity which would make this a workmanlike Clause, a whole lot of unnecessary matters are included. We have a variety of complications, different dates for different purposes, different classes of agreements, different classes of business, different types of restrictions, different goods, processes and transactions, different areas and places. All these are now put into Clause 7, and we seek to leave them out so that the Clause can be made a simple Clause for the purpose for which it was designed.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take into account these observations and will realise that the proper course for him would be not to follow the wrong reasoning of the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks), but to realise that a simple Clause is required to deal with the registration of agreements already defined in Clause 5, and that if any further definitions or qualifications are required with respect to those agreements this is not the place to have them. The Minister should reconsider Clause 5 and put any further definitions and qualifications into that Clause, leaving Clause 7 a simple and workmanlike provision by omitting the words sought to be left out.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Committee must consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said when he moved the Amendment in connection with simultaneous registration. I understand that what the Government are seeking to do through the machinery of this Clause is to have certain classes of agreements selected by means of a system of priority, and that would mean that certain other classes of agreements would be left for some later time.
I cannot see how, in a matter of this kind, priority of class is to be a test. Where we have, as the central point of this legislation, the question of the public interest, I should have thought that the proper priority would be the infraction of the public interest. It is not a question of any particular class of agreement. By this procedure one might be registering certain classes of agreement, and by doing that one might leave out a most urgent agreement that requires immediate attention in order to avoid what I have referred to as an infraction of the public interest.
I cannot see how the object of the Bill is to be achieved, how one is to prevent an injury to the public interest and how one is able to deal immediately with the amendment of something that has taken place against the public interest, unless we have simultaneity of registration. We should then have in front of us for examination and for action any agreement which may operate against the public interest.
Otherwise, instead of talking about this system of priorities and registration of classes, we are setting up a mechanism of delays. By the same token that certain classes of agreements are being brought forward, we are also pushing certain classes of agreement backward, and it may be in those very agreements that are being held back where the public interest is urgently and most immediately involved. I cannot see why the Committee should be asked to adopt a system which will be cumbersome and complex, and which may be anything but beneficial to the purposes that we are seeking to achieve in a matter where we are being asked to deal with injury to the public interest.
I cannot see how we are to select particular types of agreement specially in order to achieve the end for which this legislation is supposed to be set up. I do not see how it can possibly be carried out. I do not see how it could be practicable. If the Government are really anxious about this matter, if they want to protect the public interest and be able to tackle any agreement which is detrimental to the public, there ought to be simultaneous registration.
I appreciate that there are many agreements to register, but that is really a

numerical matter. It has nothing whatever to do with the particular urgency of any one matter. I can quite understand that there will be a large number of agreements to register, but that is only a question of the period within which to register, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North said. There is no reason why the Government should not say that all agreements must be registered within a certain period. Three months has been mentioned. For argument, let us say six months; at least, let us put a definite period to the term of registration so that the whole of these agreements can be caught, examined and submitted to the Court where necessary. I can see no objection to, or difficulty about, saying definitively that there should be registration within a definite period.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee is not divided here on any point of principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) defined his objective as the achieving of reasonable speed and efficiency in registration. That is certainly the objective of the Government, also. We are anxious to achieve the earliest practicable registration of agreements, and all that really is in issue here is a purely administrative and practical matter as to whether we will achieve that aim better by having an order-making power—for reasons already adduced on Second Reading—or whether it will be better to jettison that power and do what these Amendments seek to do, namely, make all agreements registrable within three months of the passing of the Act.
In the first place, it is not appropriate to make it obligatory to register all agreements, as this Amendment seeks to do. We have taken account of what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading and we have, as he will have seen, re-examined our saving provision, subsection (4), and greatly limited it, which I hope will meet with his commendation. It is still desirable, nevertheless, to have some procedure whereby it is possible to exclude from the processes of registration the, so-to-speak, "minnows" which are of no substantial economic significance. If these Amendments were accepted, we should not be able to retain that provision in the Bill.
Secondly, we do think that the order-making power is valuable. It is valuable because it enables agreements of first priority and urgency to reach the register first. I quite appreciate that that point would not arise if they could all be registered simultaneously, without the possibility of administrative difficulty and inconvenience retarding the operation of dealing with the really important ones.
It is a difficult matter to prophesy about in any dogmatic way, and I would not propose to do that. But I do suggest that the probabilities are, where one does not know how much will be dredged up in the way of restrictive agreements—and nobody knows until registration starts—that there will be a large weight of small agreements which will tend to flood the register and embarrass the Registrar if they are all to be dealt with simultaneously within a statutorily prescribed time. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no difficulty about scheduling the essential industries.

Mr. Jay: There was no difficulty; it was done.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It was done, but on that occasion it was no ordinary matter because those doing it had the advantage of the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think he will be able to help the present Registrar—at least, not as far as I know.
The only other argument advanced in favour of—if I may adopt the polysyllable used by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)—the simultaneity of registration was the effect of publicity. It is quite true, of course, that we wish to see as many agreements as possible jettisoned without the necessity to come before the Court, where it is possible for those who are parties to them to do so; but I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that the most convenient course to secure that result is to expedite registration in all cases.
The process is a continuing one, and by having an order-making power it will be possible to get the maximum number of agreements jettisoned without the necessity of their cumbering the register at all. It is right that the possibility of jettisoning should be kept open right to

the last moment. You, Major Anstruther-Gray, as a noted equestrian, may remember the words of the poet:
Between the stirrup and the ground
I mercy ask'd, I mercy found.
There will be many cases, right up to the point of registration, where these agreements may be jettisoned and save the whole administrative paraphernalia of dealing with them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our intentions. I can give an unqualified assurance that what I said on Second Reading still holds good. We shall be able to do these things, provided he does not seek to compel us to clutter up the register with all sorts of agreements simultaneously under the terms of the statute. The undertaking I gave on Second Reading was, I think, in clear terms. It would deal, inter alia, with the matter of collective discrimination to which he has referred.
The other point is the time for making the order. The right hon. Gentleman asks when we expect to make the order. Under Clause 32 of the Bill, the Act is not to come into force until one month after it has been passed by Parliament, so, of course, we cannot make the order until the Act is in force; but if, as I hope is the case, we make good progress with this Bill, then I would certainly give consideration to introducing an Amendment at a suitable stage to enable the order to be brought in before the expiry of one month from the passing of the Act. I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment so that we can pass on.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I just ask a question about the exclusion of "minnows"? The hon. Gentleman did indicate that if this Amendment were carried, then it would not be possible to operate the provisions covered by the Government Amendment to Clause 7, which would provide for the exclusion by the Board of Trade of small agreements of no economic significance. I am not sure that I understood him correctly, but if I did, surely that must be wrong because, obviously, that provision for the exclusion of "minnows" would apply equally well at any time, whether the arrangement is for registration in accordance with orders of the Board of Trade made in accordance with the provisions of the Bill as


it stands, or by the stated date. It would not affect the operation of the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This Amendment is, is it not, the first of the Amendments to leave out the words
Subject to the provisions of this section",
so that there would be compulsion to register every agreement without any saving provision in the Clause? The power to exclude "minnows" under our subsection (4), as we propose to amend it, is a provision which would be excluded if the words
Subject to the provisions of this section
were taken out. That is the only point here; I do not think that it is a very difficult one.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary has based himself on a technicality. It is misleading for the Committee to have the impression that the Parliamentary Secretary is on a point of substance when he is, in fact, on a mere technicality of the wording of the Amendment. It does not help us to get on if he takes points of that kind.
Secondly, does he suggest that if the words
subject to the provisions of this section
were taken out of subsection (1), then subsection (3), which would remain in the Bill, would be entirely nugatory and its provisions would be disregarded by the Court? Clearly, the position would be exactly the same as if the words
subject to the provisions of this section
were included.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Parliamentary Secretary has not been up to his usual form in the answers which he has given on these very important Amendments. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) made a point about the "minnows" with which I will not deal because my hon. and learned Friend has disposed of the Parliamentary Secretary completely on that point.
I will turn to the main part of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, which fell into two halves which seem to me completely to contradict each other. In the first part of his remarks, the hon. and learned Member made great play

with the fact that if we were to have effective progress in this field we must select our priorities very carefully. As I listened to him I felt that that was an argument—but it was exactly opposite to what he said on Second Reading.
At the end, realising that he had better not create the impression that the procedure which he proposes would be very much slower than that which we would use, the Parliamentary Secretary said, "I stand by the undertaking which I gave on Second Reading." If he will look at that undertaking he will find that he said quite specifically that within three months after the passing of the Act it was the Government's intention that the great bulk of restrictive agreements should be registered.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady will appreciate that there is no inconsistency in that. I could not single out these specific important categories referred to in my speech on Second Reading unless we had the order-making powers which the Amendment would jettison.

Mrs. Castle: According to the Parliamentary Secretary, those categories will cover the great bulk of the agreements, and, therefore, he will have cluttered up the machinery in any event. He is trying to have the best of both worlds, but life is not like that. He is trying to tell us, on the one hand, that his procedure will involve no more delay than ours. Then he tells us that it would cover the great bulk of the agreements. Then he tells us, in another breath, that we must give him order-making powers in order that he may be selective, because he must pick out one or two urgent priorities. Are his urgent priorities, in fact, about 90 per cent. of the field? If so, his argument against our desire to see automatic registration falls to the ground.
We are with the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that a great many of our hopes of achieving speed in this work depend on the jettisoning of the maximum number of agreements before registration becomes necessary. That is an important factor which we should bear in mind. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to answer the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who pointed out that the best way to see that the maximum number of agreements


are jettisoned is by publicity and the impact of publicity which automatic registration would bring.
If the Minister is to have the order-making procedure, there will be a hope of delay for industry, and therefore there will be procrastination. The industries will not themselves put their house in order, as would be the case if they knew that there was an automatic obligation on them to register within three months after the passing of the Act.
6.45 p.m.
Perhaps I may next answer the argument of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). He said that he did not like our Amendment much because it meant that Parliament would lose control over the Registrar. He quite rightly pointed out that we on this side of the Committee had expressed some anxiety, when discussing Clause 1, about the lack of control over the Registrar. I agree with him on that point; in fact, I spoke warmly for some of his Amendments at the time. But I suggest to him that this is the wrong way to approach the matter—to say that because the Government have thrown away the Parliamentary control over the Registrar which we wanted, through control of the method of appointment and his activities, we should salvage something by wrecking the process of registration. Surely that is the wrong way round. We want to see Government control at the right point, whereas the Government are retaining control at the wrong point.

Mr. Wade: To save time, I did not deal with a point which might perhaps answer the kindly but critical comments which the hon. Lady has made. We are suffering from the handicap of many years of delay in introducing legislation of this nature. I believe that we should have introduced legislation eight or nine years ago, and I have said that on many occasions. We should first have embarked on registration, probably the registration of agreements defined by Parliament. That would have taken at least six months. We should then have introduced legislation laying down what Parliament considered to be against the public interest. I would then have given an opportunity to associations to alter their rules,

if necessary. That would have taken time, but it would have been the right procedure seven years ago. Now, unfortunately, we have had to introduce legislation which combines registration, investigation and prohibition. That is the reason for my earlier comments.

Mrs. Castle: It has been very interesting to listen to the hon. Member's speech about what he would have done if he had been President of the Board of Trade, but that is not the point he made against our Amendment; he has now made quite a different speech—and I was perfectly willing to give him the opportunity to make it. I was dealing with his previous speech, in which he said that by our Amendment we were going back on our previous fight to retain Parliamentary control over the Registrar.
My answer to him remains the same; of course we want better Parliamentary control over the Registrar, but the way to bring that about is through the method of appointment, which we tried to achieve in the discussion on Clause 1. Unfortunately, the Government defeated us. That does not mean that, having failed in that respect, we should now wreck the process of registration.
The tragedy of the Government's procedure is that they are trying to retain control at the wrong point. Registration should be automatic. This is not the point at which the Government should step in and look for priorities and get in the way of what ought to be an automatic job. The Government are interfering at the wrong point. They need control over the later processes, which are inevitably more important. We could institute proper control over the stage at which proceedings start if we had an effective control over the Registrar's activities.
There is no administrative reason why registration should not be automatic and there is an important psychological reason that it should be automatic. We all claim, by lip-service, that restrictive practices are contrary to the public interest, although we have spent a lot of time on the Bill whittling that away under the Government's influence. Let us here, at least, retain the statement that in the view of the Committee the registration of this type of restrictive practice will be an automatic and legal obligation on the


parties to those agreements from three months after the passing of the Act. That would be a reasonable period after the passing of the Act. We have had no reason given why that should not be so. I suggest that the argument about Parliamentary control has been applied wrongly on this point. I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a point of principle here, and in view of that I beg my right hon. Friend to press the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I, too, thought the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary most unsatisfactory. They made a very bad impression on this side of the Committee. There was no real attempt to answer the points made by my right hon. Friend the. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary were quite contradictory.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No.

Mr. Fletcher: Oh, yes. The hon. Gentleman tried to minimise the division between us on this matter.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn that a very important and fundamental difference is raised by these Amendments. I thought it very unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary should try to get away with a purely verbal technicality about the "minnows." Of course, we agree with the new subsection (3), which was originally put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and other hon. Friends and has now been adopted by the President of the Board of Trade. It is all right to have some exception of that kind, but the real point of principle is that if the Government are really serious about this Bill and really intend to go ahead and stop these practices which are contrary to the public interest, there is no reason whatever why they should not make them all registrable within three months of the coming into operation of the Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he thought a certain number of these agreements would be jettisoned and he was anxious that people should have a locus pœnitentiœin which to jettison them. Why extend that? If it goes out from Parliament that as soon as this Bill is passed these practices will all be registered, any which are to be jettisoned will

be jettisoned immediately. If, on the other hand, the Board of Trade retains its order-making power those practices may be kept for a very long time before the orders are made. We believe that the sooner undesirable agreements are scrapped and jettisoned the better it will be. That will be sooner if it is known that they have to be registered within three months of the passing of the Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary must address himself to this fact. Does he, as he said on Second Reading, really intend that there shall be a very early registration of the three classes of agreement which he regards as the bulk, or does he not? If they do constitute the bulk, there should be no difficulty in making them all registrable. He spoke of administrative difficulties. What does he mean by that? Is not this some bureaucratic device of registration? Surely the Government have decided what kind of machinery has to be set up and what kind of staff will be needed for the registration. We should like the Registrar to have adequate staff from the outset to enable him to cope with all the agreements dealt with under the Bill. Unless he has adequate staff it will be cluttered up. We do not want the work to be cluttered up, but we want the Registrar to have sufficient staff to make sure that it is not cluttered up.
This really is in the nature of a test of the sincerity of the Government in their approach to this Bill. They can form their opinion of it just as well as they can form their opinion on order-making power and as to the kind and number of agreements which are to be registrable. They have time to do that between now and the passing of the Bill into law. The Government are not slow in introducing all kinds of machinery dealing with all kinds of novel matters, whether Premium Bonds or something else. If the Minister sets his mind to it there will be no difficult about the machinery necessary.
If there is any administrative difficulty it will be the fault of the Minister, and he will be condemned for it. We want to strengthen his hand. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not think, after this debate, that this is merely an idle series of Amendments. We want to ensure that everything which should be registered shall be registered within three months after the Bill comes into law. We believe that only by that


method will the Government give a clear indication that it is their intention to deal with the matter seriously.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: One of the difficulties we have in dealing with the Government in this debate is the fervour and vigour with which they advance any particular argument which comes to their aid at any given moment irrespective of the fact that it may contradict an argument which, with equal fervour, they may have put forward a few days previously.
The Parliamentary Secretary has done the same today. When, a few days ago, the point at issue was the possibility of delay and he was anxious to avoid any charge of delay, he was at pains to point out that most of the main agreements would be called upon for registration practically immediately. Today, when he seeks to make arrangements for an orderly progression to the penitent stool, he seeks to contradict the argument he made previously.
The same is true of the President of the Board of Trade. A few days ago, when discussing the effectiveness of publicity and procedure to follow the original registration, the President was strongly in favour of publicity as being one of the major instruments in the Bill for achieving the desired result. I do not have to give my own words in support of my argument, because the right hon. Gentleman said it himself on 26th April:
… many industrialists, as we know, have been looking at their arrangements and searching their minds whether they are necessary in this modern age.
I presume that the right hon. Gentleman meant the arrangements, not the minds. He went on:
A great number of them will be put away and never heard of again. If we can get rid of restrictive practices that way it is much more satisfactory than all the courts and tribunals than any of us can create."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1991.]
I heartily agree with the President of the Board of Trade on that. Therefore, why should we remove pressure from those industrialists who are busily considering their restrictive arrangements by postponing even in the slightest degree the need for the registration of these agreements? If they are acting with such alacrity as the President said a few days ago, surely we should do nothing in the

interests of the Bill, in the interests of economy and in the interests of the career of the President of the Board of Trade, to delay the process of consideration. If withering away of restrictive practices is to follow registration, surely there can be no argument than that there should be registration immediately and comprehensively over the whole field of restrictive practices under the Bill.
The second point I should like to deal with is the alibi put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary that immediate and comprehensive registration would impose a terrific administrative burden on the Board of Trade. I do not think that that can be so. Of course, there would be a burden and, of course, it would be an immediate burden on the Board of Trade, particularly, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, if 85 per cent. of the registrable agreements to be registered would be registered in the early stages. There would be some kind of temporary burden on the administrative arrangements of the Board of Trade.
7.0 p.m.
There is no doubt that the main impetus and the main flood of the work in the initial stages of the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be much heavier than the continuing process of administration, so that, whatever happens, there will be an administrative bulge at the beginning. The Parliamentary Secretary is arguing with us because we seek to increase that administrative bulge, as it were, by the mere 15 per cent. of difference between his 85 per cent. registration and our 100 per cent. complete and comprehensive registration. Whichever method is adopted, whether it is the President's method or that suggested by our Amendment, there will be this initial administrative burden, and we are not seeking to extend it very greatly; though the President will in any case have to make provision for it.
Finally, I wish to take up a point made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, who referred in detail to this Amendment. He suggested that the labour and administrative overloading would happen not only at the Board of Trade, but also in industry when industry looked at its own practices and decided whether its arrangements came within the scope of the Bill or not. The Amendment put forward from this side of the Committee would,


in effect, greatly reduce the labour in industry and the labour of counsel who will be advising industry, because we are removing one category of definitions from the scope of the Bill altogether.
In other words, as the Bill stands, both industry and its advisers will have to consider two things: first, whether the practices and agreements which they have fall within the scope of the Bill as a whole: and, secondly, as order after order succeeds each other from the Board of Trade, in an attempt at ordering this regulated queue to the Registrar, industry will have to look at its agreements from a second light and see whether they come within the ambit of a particular order which has been put forward by the President of the Board of Trade at any particular time.
Therefore, there will be a double process of assessment, analysis and discussion in industry and by its advisers under the Bill as it stands, whereas, under the Amendment which we are proposing, the effect will be to relieve a great strain on the Minister and on counsel advising industry, for which they should be grateful. Whether they will be grateful or not I do not know, because the decision which has to be made and the advice which will have to be given by counsel is by our Amendment restricted to a single set of categories where the agreement is registrable at all, and the removal of the problem whether a particular industry is first, second, or third or ad infinitum in the queue.
On this point, therefore, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary either has a point of substance, in which case he was completely misleading the Committee in the discussion by his own plans for registration, or building up a strong argument on a narrow point, in which case the graceful thing for him to do would be to accept the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee.

Mr. John Cronin: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) on most of his points, with one possible exception. He rather indicated that counsel would be grateful to be saved a certain amount of work, but my impression is that counsel rather welcome work and that the more complex legal issues are, the more satisfied they generally are.

Mr. Fienburgh: indicated assent—

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend acknowledges that perhaps that may be the case.
I listened to the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary with care, and I thought that he seemed to employ rather less than his usual dialectical skill on this occasion in presenting them, so that they did not sound very convincing.
As I understood him, the principal objection to the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee is that the Registrar will be flooded by a mass of small agreements being registered. Is that really likely to be such a serious embarrassment to the staff as the hon. Gentleman suggested? I should like to look at the physical objects of the task, which are mentioned in Clause 8 and which seem to be of a simple nature.
For instance, subsection (1, a) calls for the names of the parties to the agreements to be handed in to the Registrar, and paragraph (b) of the same subsection calls for the terms of the agreements. This does not seem to be a very complex phase of this legislation. All that is necessary is that someone will have to receive these particulars and file them, and I should not have thought that that would be a great embarrassment to any reasonably well-conducted office. I do not suggest that the Registrar should act within three months, but that the practices should be registered within three months of the passing of the act.
However, I will not labour the point because some of my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) have already made clear that the whole object of this registration within three months of the passing of the Act is to be absolutely certain and clear that all firms continuing restrictive practices must register them. It may well be that some firms will tend to drop these practices, and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree about that, but surely he will agree that they are more likely to be jettisoned immediately or rapidly if it is known that they have to be registered within that time? That seems to me to be the common sense of the matter.
If the firms concerned know that there is likely to be delay, if there seems to be some hope that they may have to wait until next year or the year after, or if


they think there are to be prolonged delays, they will continue to operate their restrictive practices. Do not let us forget the fact that substantial profits are derived from these practices, and that whenever there is an economic profit motive, the restrictive practice will be pursued, unless there is a very clear indication to the contrary. I do not accept the argument that there will be any decline in the number of practices that will be jettisoned.
Another aspect of the matter is, I think, rather unfair. We on this side of the Committee would like all those people who are interested in this matter to be quite clear and know where they are, but, as the Clause is drafted, some industries will have to register soon, some later, some more some time, and some others almost never. There will be long delays, and the result will be that we shall find that some of the more nefarious restrictive agreements will be operated with impunity but without any fear of publicity of registration if the firms concerned know, or think there is hope, that there will be prolonged delay.
I suggest that we should take away that hope from firms or industries which are operating restrictive practices seriously contrary to the public interest. We want this Bill to convey to them the same kind of warning as is conveyed by the gate in Dante's "Inferno"—they must abandon all hope of continuing their practices.
Another thing is that the Parliamentary Secretary's scheme will cause considerable uncertainty in industry. Various firms which operate restrictive practices base their production, costings and their price basis on restrictive practices. If there is to be uncertainty and they do not know when they are to be registered, they will not be able to plan their production, pricing or costing, and they will be confused. This is very unfair to the industries concerned, which are getting a hard deal from the Board of Trade in this matter.
I ask the Parliamentry Secretary to reconsider the matter. What we want to do is to make sure that every firm has a clear straight run. We want to make sure that they are all lined up at the starting gate and can get off to a good start, whereas the Parliamentary Secretary wants to drive them into the arena of public opinion one after the other, rather like a disorderly kind of bullfight.

Mr. Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary was extremely unconvincing this evening. I thought he might say that the procedure which we propose would be unworkable, but he did not say that. I am sure that if the Board of Trade thought it was unworkable, he would have said so. I imagine that one reason why he did not say so was that he very nearly told the House, on Second Reading, that it was practical.
The Parliamentary Secretary brought forward two objections to the Amendment. He said that it would exclude the Board of Trade's power for leaving out what he called the "minnows" from registration. If that is the objection, we are content to have an arrangement by which there is a definite date for all registrations, with provision for excluding the minnows. Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary somehow managed to persuade himself that if there was registration over a long period, there would be more publicity and more healthy effects from publicity. Surely, if the jettisoning of the agreements is due to the publicity, and the publicity is due to registration, it must follow that the sooner there is registration, the sooner the agreements will be jettisoned. I do not believe that that can be seriously questioned.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) had doubts that by this procedure we would take the matter out of the hands of Parliament. I think that exactly the reverse is the case and that the hon. Member had forgotten Clause 1 (2). On the suggestion that we are making, the position would be that if all agreements within the scope of the Bill were registered by a certain date, under Clause 1 it would be in the hands of the Board of Trade to instruct the Registrar as to the order according to which he took proceedings against certain of the agreements which had been registered; and since Clause 1 uses the words:
subject to … directions … by the Board of Trade with respect to the order …
it follows that it would be open to hon. Members of the House to ask the Board of Trade Questions on that matter. I think, therefore, that under this procedure there would be much greater, and not less, Parliamentary control.
In the end, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance, for which I am grateful, which I understood to mean that subject to some consideration he would pro-


ceed to the first group within one month of the date when the Bill became law. We would, naturally, like to have that quite firm and definite before we part with the Bill, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may later be able to make it quite firm, as, I gather, he was not able to do tonight.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us this assurance, also? Can he say how soon the other main groups of restrictive practices outside the groups to which he referred on Second Reading will be called for registration? I pointed out on Second Reading that as the Bill stood, it might take a hundred years before everything was registered, and the Parliamentary Secretary did his best to make fun of that. If he is to prove to us that he was sincere, can he tell us when the remaining restrictive practices, bar what he calls the minnows and bar the original group, which he described as being the bulk of all practices, will be registered? Can he say, for instance, that the other remaining practices bar the minnows will be registered at least within, say, three or five years of the passing of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee will not expect a long reply from me. I note that two hon. Members who put points after I spoke last, do not expect a reply, because they have left the Chamber.
I am glad the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is not, I understand, pressing his Amendment, which would exclude the "minnows" provision. As for the rest, all I need say is that on Second Reading I affirmed the desire of the Government to get on as quickly as possible with registration, and I gave a programme. I have this evening not only reaffirmed that programme; I have improved upon it. Therefore, it is clear that hon. Members opposite, who sought to say that the Government were

not seeking to make proper progress in this matter, were making an unfounded allegation and one which, in the circumstances, was rather less than fair.

7.15 p.m.

I will certainly be able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the other agreements about which he asks will be well within the period which he has specified. I think he said three or five years—

Mr. Jay: The hon. and learned Gentleman means the three or five years, and not the 100 years?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic moderation, had come down from 100 years to three or five years on this occasion. It will be well within that shorter period. It may be possible, before the House parts with the Bill, for my right hon. Friend or me to make a more precise statement.
So far as the major group is concerned, the order will come as soon as possible after Parliament has dealt with the Bill and I hope it may be possible even to anticipate the month's interval which is now prescribed by Clause 32. On that, I ask the Committee to say that the Government have shown their good faith and the practicality of their intentions, and I hope that we may now have a decision on the Amendments.

Mr. Jay: I understand that if this Amendment is withdrawn, it will be possible to divide on the next Amendment. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 27, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Jay.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 205.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Barter, John
Body, R. F.


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Armstrong, C. W.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Braine, B. R.


Ashton, H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bidgood, J. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Brooke, Rt. Hon Henry


Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brooman-White, R. C.


Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W.
Bryan, P.




Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Partridge, E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitt, Mist E. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C
Pott, H. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Powell, J. Enoch


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kurd, A. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crouch, R. F.
Hyde, Montgomery
Ramsden, J. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Cunningham, Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dance, J. C. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ronton, D. L. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Robson-Brown, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Roper, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kaberry, D.
Ropner, Sir Leonard


Duthie, W. S.
Keegan, D.
Russell, R. S.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Kerr, H. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.
Sharpies, R. C.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fell, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Soames, Capt. C.


Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leburn, W. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Foster, John
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Freeth, D. K.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Studholme, H. G.


Gammans, Sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Teeling, W.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Glover, D.
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
McKibbin, A. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Thornton-Kemstey, G. N.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grant-Ferris, Wg.Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Green, A.
Maddan, Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, D. F.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wade, D. W.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus
Wall, Major Patrick



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, R. L.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macelesfd)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Hay, John
Moore, Sir Thomas
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.
Mott-Radclyffe. C. E.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey
Woollam, John Victor


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nield, Basil (Chester)



Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Mr. Oakshott and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baird, J.


Albu, A. H.
Anderson, Frank
Balfour, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Awbery, S. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)







Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Beswick, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Probert, A. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ledger, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, P.
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Logan, D. C.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, C. O



Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dye, S.
Mahon, Simon
Thornton, E.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Tomney, F.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Fienburgh, W.
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
West, D. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.(Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Richard


Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parker, J.
Woof, R. E.


Hastings, S.
Parkin, B. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Paton, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Healey, Denis
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.



Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Board of Trade may, on the recommendation of the Registrar, by order except from this section agreements of any class appearing significance; and any such order may make provision for the removal from the register of particulars of any agreement of that class of which particulars have previously been entered therein under this Part of this Act.
Subject to your approval, Sir Rhys, I think that it will be convenient to the Committee to take, at the same time,

the Government Amendments in page 6, lines 31 and 42.
This matter has already been touched upon in the discussions which we had on the last Amendment. Clause 7 (4) gives the Board of Trade rather a wide power to exclude agreements from the register. It is not desired to have more than a limited power, so as to exclude what in our previous discussion were referred to as the "minnows" among the restrictive agreements, that is to say, agreements


perhaps of purely local effect or agreements in some other way having no substantial economic significance.
I understand from what was said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that the Opposition concedes the principle that there should be some power of exclusion of this type of agreement. Therefore, I commend this amended and narrow form to the Committee. The orders made under subsection (4) will be subject to parliamentary control under the provisions of subsection (5).

Mr. E. Fletcher: This is a great improvement on subsection (4) as printed in the Bill, but I wonder whether it is sufficiently clear. As I understand, the Board of Trade has now asked for power to exclude by order agreements of a class which in its opinion has no substantial economic significance. The first question which occurs to one is whether any agreement in the class in respect of which an order is made can itself have any substantial economic significance.
I can well understand that there may be quite a large number of individual agreements which would merit exemption from legislation if looked at individually, but at the moment it is not apparent what the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind in referring to a class of agreements none of which has any substantial economic significance. I think that it would help us to appreciate what he has in mind if he would give us just one illustration of the sort of order that may be made under this new subsection (3).

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that what will happen in practice is that the Committee will see that the proposed new subsection empowers the Board of Trade to make an order upon the recommendation of the Registrar and then the order can make provision for the removal of the particulars at present on the register and the non-registration of similar matters.
The Registrar will find that he is getting on the register certain of these agreements of no substantial economic significance because they are purely local, or for whatever other reason, and he will then come to the Board of Trade and say, "I am getting this sort of stuff. This is not the stuff it is any use proceeding

with to the Court. On the basis of the sort of agreement I have already got, I am now in a position to define precisely the sort of agreements which should be exempted within this class." Then the order will be drafted on that basis, and it will be at that point of time possible to draft it with precision and particularity. I do not think I had better essay on any hypothetical examples in case they may be brought to commit the Board or the Registrar hereafter in point of fact. I think that this makes clear how this is intended to work and the useful function which it will discharge within this more limited context.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It appears from that answer that the Board of Trade does not know how clearly it is going to work.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Not now.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree, but it is now that we are concerned about. I agree that it does not matter very much not having classes defined within the Bill when we have the provisions of subsection (5) to ensure that the matter shall be brought before Parliament. If it were not for the provisions in subsection (5), we on this side of the Committee would be strongly inclined to vote against these provisions, because it is obviously desirable in cases of this kind that the classes should be defined in the Bill.
In other parts of the Bill all the classes are defined. We have classes defined in Clause 5 for inclusion in registration, and in Clause 6 for exclusion from registration. One thing which we are not told in the Bill and by the Parliamentary Secretary is what class is to be excluded. It is difficult for us to envisage what class of agreement could be excluded.
Let us approach this in the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has done. The Registrar is to see a number of agreements of no substantial economic significance on his register. He will then, the Parliamentary Secretary suggests, be in a position to define a class. That is exactly one of the difficulties which we envisage in this Amendment in defining a class. How can one define a class of agreement of no substantial economic significance except by saying that it is of no substantial economic significance?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) envisaged in his approach to the Amendment that every single agreement in that class would be of no substantial economic significance. I am not at all sure that the Amendment as it stands means that. The Amendment may well mean—and I am not joining issue with my hon. Friend on this—that the class considered as a whole is of no substantial economic significance, but nevertheless we may have agreements in the class which can be of appreciable economic significance.
The general difficulty which we feel in considering this Amendment is how the class can possibly be defined, so much so that, until we had the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, we on this side of the Committee in considering this Amendment were not at all sure that the grammatical meaning of "appear to the Board" to be of no substantial significance should apply to a class or was not intended to apply to a class at all but to each of the individual agreements that went into the class.
The problem with which the Parliamentary Secretary is faced here is a substantial one. We welcome this Amendment as a very great improvement, of course, on the subsection which it replaces, and we have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Trade have in mind. But, following his reply to my hon. Friend, we are extremely sceptical as to whether in fact this is an effective provision and whether it would not be far wiser for the Board of Trade simply to refer to any agreement instead of any class.
All that I wish to say in support of my hon. Friend on this matter is to ask that the Parliamentary Secretary give further consideration not to the purpose which he has in mind—we are in agreement as to the purpose—but to the way in which that purpose is handled in this Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad that we are at one about the purpose and the intention of the Amendment which we are discussing. In regard to the form of it, it may be possible to see whether there is any middle course between defining a class, which is what the Amendment at

present does in pursuance of the general structure of the Clause and identifying agreements specifically sub nomine, which is, I think, undesirable. If it is possible to find a middle course—I have no pride of authorship about this—I will certainly look at this matter between now and the Report stage to see if we can improve on the actual wording; but perhaps we may have the Amendment now as a basis for going on?

Mr. Philip Bell: I hope that I am not being pedantic by saying that I cannot quite understand how the recommendation of the Registrar matches up with the fact that it is the Board which has to make up its mind about substantial economic significance. Let us test it for one moment. The Board looks at the register and thinks that the particular item registered is of no substantial economic significance. Having got as far as that, it has to wait for a recommendation of the Registrar. What will the Registrar recommend? He has not looked into it at all, he has no executive power at all, and on what basis will he make a recommendation?
Will he make one before the Board decides that it is of substantial economic significance or afterwards? I wonder whether it is the other way round? If the Board thinks it is of no substantial economic significance, it must tell the Registrar to remove the agreement. It seems to me to be otiose to ask the Registrar to recommend something which the Board itself wants if the Board makes up its mind to say to the Registrar, "Remove it". But to have two people nibbling at this, with the Registrar having no possibility of finding out if it is of economic significance, makes his job administrative at that stage. Fortunately for him, he has not to decide whether on balance it is a good thing or a bad thing. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether those words are put in to inflate the position of the Registrar but not really to give him either the means or the method of taking any action of his own?
I wonder about the words referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary—"agreements of any class appearing to the Board ". I do not want to be pedantic, but I should have thought that the words "of any class" govern the word "agreements". I say, with respect, that I feel


unhappy about the phraseology of the first of those two lines.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I assure my hon. and learned Friend first in regard to the question of the relationship of the agreements and the class that this is covered by what I have said already as to the further consideration that we shall give. There is nothing sinister about the provision in regard to the recommendation of the Registrar. I explained earlier how we visualised this working. It is the Registrar who will see the type of agreements coming in, which are what I call the minnows, and it is for him to draw the attention of the Board of Trade to them.
There is nothing sacrosanct about these words as we are to look at them again, but, of course, the object in having the recommendation of the Registrar is to make it clear that this provision will only be exercised in order to get administrative efficiency and viability into the working of this procedure. It is not a question of the Board of Trade suddenly, for some economic, political or other reason of its own, seeking to exclude some forms of agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 31, leave out "the last foregoing subsection" and insert "this section."

In page 6, line 42, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the debate we have had on some earlier Amendments, and of the refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the idea of the automatic registration of agreements as being the onus on the parties to those agreements, I do not think that we should allow the Clause to go without trying to clear up the ambiguity on a rather important point.
That point is, on whom lies the initiative for registering these agreements? Is the initiative with the Registrar or is it with the parties to the agreement? As I have studied this Clause, in conjunction with those dealing with the question of registration, I find it difficult to be sure

what exactly is the legal obligation in respect of registration of the parties to the agreement.
This matter is dealt with in various parts of the Bill. Clause 1 merely states that the Registrar has the duty to maintain a register but, unless I am being very obtuse, it is difficult to find out how the agreements are to get on to the register. By whose initiative? On whom do we lay the legal obligation in this Bill to take action? It is interesting to study the form of words used in this Clause. It is a rather strange form of words because it is in the passive tense. The Clause does not say that so-and-so shall register an agreement. It says that every agreement shall be subject to registration.
We know already from our discussion of this Clause that the registration will not be automatic. It is within the control of the Board of Trade and therefore, presumably, the Board of Trade can vary the legal obligation to register—

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the points she is now raising are matters which will come up under Clause 8, which deals with responsibility for furnishing particulars for the purpose of registration. In seeking to answer the hon. Lady, Sir Rhys, I would not want to get out of order by reason of anticipation.

Mrs. Castle: I have studied Clause 8 with care, Sir Rhys, and it is just because I think that it does not meet this point that I feel that I must raise it on Clause 7.

The Deputy-Chairman: if that be the case, I think the hon. Lady should raise it on Clause 8, rather than on Clause 7.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, Sir Rhys.
I am saying that on my reading of Clause 8 it does not deal with the question of registration, but with the question of furnishing particulars. If I could be allowed to develop my argument, it might emerge that there is a point of substance. Of course it might also emerge that I have been rather stupid. That is a possibility, but I do not think that we ought to dismiss—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Lady looks at Clause 8 she will find that


it deals with registration, and it appears to me that it would be more appropriate to raise the matter on that Clause.

Mrs. Castle: With great respect, Sir Rhys, I have gone into this with great care and I find Clause 8 does not deal with registration, but with the furnishing of particulars. That, I suggest, is not necessarily the same thing, because it does not say, in Clause 8, at what stage those particulars are to be furnished—that is to say, whether before or after the Registrar has asked for them.

The Deputy-Chairman: That appears to be a matter for Clause 8.

Mrs. Castle: If the Parliamentary Secretary had paid me the courtesy of allowing me to try to develop what I think is a serious point, he would have seen that I am suggesting that there is a gap in the Bill which he may not have realised. It fails to state specifically whether there is a legal obligation on the parties to an agreement to take the intiative in registering, or whether it is for the Registrar to decide that an agreement exists which ought to be registered and then invite the parties to the agreement to register it by furnishing him with the particulars.
I suggest in all seriousness that those are two separate questions and two different types of activity. The second would be dealt with in Clause 8, but the first would fall within Clause 7. I am suggesting that the wording in Clause 7, which is in a deliberately passive tense for some unknown reason—that every agreement shall be subject to registration—does not make clear what is the function of the Registrar.
We want to know whether, for example, any legal obligation falls upon anybody to register until the Registrar has approached him and asked him to furnish particulars. That is my point, and I must deal with it now; otherwise, we shall pass from the Clause on the assumption that one of the interpretations is the correct one—and it might be that the Committee would wish to challenge the second of the interpretations. I personally take the view that what we ought to do is to place the legal obligation upon the parties to the agreement, whether or not the Registrar ever approaches them for particulars. The

legal obligation should be theirs, and if it is discovered that parties to an agreement have failed to take the initiative in getting themselves placed on the register they should be punished under the Bill.
As the matter stands we cannot do that, because the only offence which can arise, under Clause 8, is the failure to furnish particulars—and it is not made clear whether that failure comes into existence because of an overture by the Registrar. I suggest that if we take all the Clauses relating to registration together, we shall see that the implication arises at a number of points that the initiative is to be the Registrar's, and that we are in fact expecting him to be a kind of mixture of bloodhound and crystal gazer, or water diviner, going round until his stick tells him that there is an agreement which should be registered.
In our view, that is not the right way to approach the matter. That is one of the reasons why we have fought for the simultaneous and automatic registration of agreements. Such a provision would make it clear to every party to such an agreement that it was his duty, within a limited period after the passing of the Bill, to take the initiative in making that agreement known. That is my point. I sugest that this mystery about what is meant by this passive tense is made even deeper by reference to Clause 10, which suggests—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady must wait until we reach Clause 10 before she discusses it.

Mrs. Castle: With great respect, Sir Rhys, I would point out that here we have an obscurity. When we try to understand what it means and suggest that the provision should be in the active tense and not the passive tense, surely we are in order in pointing out that unless we make that change the implications which may be gathered from the other Clauses show a certain bias in favour of a certain interpretation. If you would allow me to do so, I shall try to keep in order in raising this point of substance.
Perhaps you will allow me to use Clause 10 as an illustration. That Clause suggests that someone has been compelled to register an agreement which is not subject to registration—that is why he is an aggrieved person. The aggrieved person is somebody who has been com-


pelled to register an agreement that was not registrable. Clearly, he could not have been so compelled if the onus to register was upon him—because he would not have registered in that case. How, under Clause 10, can that situation arise, if the legal onus is—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is placing me in some difficulty. Her argument does not arise on this Clause. This Clause deals with the classes of agreement to be registered.

Mrs. Castle: It is a difficulty—but I should have thought that there was a certain amount of flexibility in this Committee to discuss this problem at the first point at which it arises, which is on this Clause.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I only want to suggest, for your consideration and help, Sir Rhys—and to help the hon. Lady—that I can, in fact, clear up the doubts about this matter in not more than two minutes, by means of a very brief reference to Clause 8, if that would be helpful to her.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be possible to clear it up, but it should be done under Clause 8 or Clause 10.

Mrs. Castle: I am anxious to make progress. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to intervene at some point, and you will be kind enough to call me again afterwards, Sir Rhys—

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for me to condone the Parliamentary Secretary's going out of order.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is in order. Her point is that the Clause contains no provision which states who is to register. She suggests that the person to register must be the Registrar. The reason she says that is that in Clause 10, which deals with the rectification of the register, the person who applies for that rectification is a person described as the person aggrieved. My hon. Friend reads from that that the person who must ensure registration under subsection (1) of this Clause is the Registrar, and she goes on to say that that should not be so. I suggest, therefore, that she is quite in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. and learned Member puts the argument, that is clearly so.

Mrs. Castle: I am open to the judgment of the Committee in this matter. I must ask the Committee to excuse my verbal inaccuracies, but I would point out that, in my feminine way, I have been saying exactly the same thing as my hon. and learned Friend has just said; indeed, if I had not, he would not have taken the point so aptly, because it had not occurred to him before.
It has been extremely difficult for me to make myself clear, because I have been so constantly interrupted. I have attempted to use other Clauses as an illustration. If hon. Members would read through Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 12 they would find that those Clauses set up an assumption that the initiative in taking the act of registration lies with the Registrar. If I am right there is no legal obligation for the parties to an agreement to take the initiative in registering, without waiting to be routed out by the Registrar and being asked to furnish particulars.
Indeed, if we go through the relevant Clauses we find that the only offence that a party to an agreement can commit in connection with registration is the failure to comply with a notice from the Registrar asking him to notify the Registrar whether he is a party to an agreement. Nowhere is there an offence for failing to take the initiative.
Surely this is a matter of very considerable substance. If the Registrar is going to have to spend an enormous amount of his time going around and making reasonable assumptions as to the existence of agreements which should be registrable—which is the phraseology used in a subsequent Clause—he will be spending a great deal of time upon a job which, in our view, ought to be done automatically. He has a tremendous amount of work to do in preparing cases for inquiry by the Restrictive Practices Court, and all the rest. It was never our view that he should have, first and foremost, to find out—by some means which is not made clear—whether agreements which should be registered but are not are in existence. I suggest that this is an omission in the Bill. If it is not the Government's intention that the Registrar should do this the wording of the Clause ought to be altered. If it is the intention,


it is still more true that the right hon. Gentleman should alter the wording in order to clarify the intention.
8.0 p.m.
We also suggest that the Clause should specifically state what legal onus is on the Registrar, and it ought to define on which parties to the agreement falls the obligation to register, whether on all of them or only on some of them. Are we to make it equally binding upon everybody who is a party to a registrable agreement to go forward and register it? Ought we not to have a form of words to enable one of the parties to do the registering in the name of the others?
The Clause is ambiguous. Taken in conjunction with subsequent Clauses, the assumption of the Clause is that there is no legal obligation on the part of anybody until the Registrar has asked for the agreement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee will appreciate that the task of answering all the points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and at the same time keeping in order is a little difficult, because I shall have to anticipate subsequent Clauses and Amendments.
Clause 7 prescribes the obligation for the registration of agreements. The way in which an agreement is registered is by the furnishing of particulars to be incorporated in the register. The hon. Lady will appreciate that in law not all agreements have in any event to be in writing. If she will be good enough to look at Clause 8 (3) she will see clearly set out the particulars to be registered or furnished for registration—to use the language of the Clause—in the case respectively of written and oral agreements.
Next comes the hon. Lady's question on whom lies the obligation to furnish these particulars of agreements for registration. The onus of doing that is on all the parties to the agreement and not on the Registrar. Clause 8 (4) defines the period within which the particulars have to be furnished. As I have already stated, the particulars having been defined in Clause 8 (3) you spell the onus out of subsection (5), which gives the procedure for default. If the particulars are not furnished, the Registrar proceeds to his default powers under subsection (5).
He serves notices upon any parties to the agreement. If the particulars are not then furnished, the parties are in default and certain other consequences follow. I do not want to anticipate discussion on subsequent Amendments, but I can say that the onus is satisfied when one party to the agreement furnishes the particulars. That is obviously commonsense, because what is required is to get the particulars on to the register. As soon as one party to the agreement has done it, the onus is satisfied.
The position is clear. The types of particulars to be registered are defined in Clause 8, the general liability to registration having appeared in Clause 7, which we are now on. The default procedure is in Clause 8 (5), while Clause 8 and the subsequent Clauses deal with the power to follow up notices and with the offences where people are in default in respect of compliance.

Mr. Fienburgh: The only difficulty about accepting the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary is that it does not meet the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). The hon. Gentleman seeks to prove that Clause 8 (5) spells out—as he puts it—or implies a responsibility to register, because it gives the Registrar power of sanction in the event of default. It does not, as I see it, give power of sanction in default of registration but only in default of furnishing the particulars.

Mr. Walker-Smith: They are the same.

Mr. Fienburgh: The argument of my hon. Friend was valid. On her interpretation of the Bill as a whole, the Registrar has to smell out agreements, and after that they will be registered. When the Registrar, having smelled out the agreement, asks that the particulars should be furnished, the default provisions come in when the particulars are not furnished. The Bill does not say that the default powers are exercisable in the event of default of initiating of registering in the first place.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I thought I had explained the position clearly. Let me try to make it clear. The furnishing of particulars is, in fact, the registering of an agreement.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the furnishing of particulars is registration. Clause 7 deals with registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was complaining that Clauses 7 and 8 are couched in the passive mood. There is no obligation, therefore, on anybody under Clause 7 to do anything. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has come into the Committee. He may have gleaned from his Parliamentary Secretary what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
This is a very serious matter. The issue is perfectly simple. There is no need, in draftsmanship, for Clause 7 (1) to start off in the passive mood and say:
Every agreement to which this Part of this Act applies shall be subject to registration.
The right way, and the only sensible way, is to redraft that subsection to make it read:
Every party to every agreement to which this Part of this Act applies shall cause such agreement to be registered.
The only way to get it right is to put an actual and definite obligation on every party to an agreement to do something. If we put something in the passive mood and say that every agreement shall be registered, it has no effect because we are not telling anybody to do anything. I do not want to be too elementary with the President of the Board of Trade, but he must understand that we cannot say to an agreement "Go and be registered". Even the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that would be silly and even immature. We cannot tell an inanimate object to do something, but we can put a definite, positive responsibility upon an individual who is amenable to the law of the land.
What bothers me is not only that the Parliamentary Secretary gave such an inadequate answer to my hon. Friend but that he appeared to justify it by saying that under a later Clause certain things would happen. It is our duty to make the Bill intelligible. We are trying to help the President of the Board of Trade. What astonished me was that the Parliamentary Secretary and the President did not seem to welcome this.
We are trying to make this Bill intelligible. Before we part with Clause 7, before we vote on it, before we accept

it, I would ask the President if there is any reason why we should not get this perfectly clear. We want the parties to the agreement to be responsible for registering, and, therefore, we want subsection (1) to say that the parties to an agreement shall see that it is registered. Pausing there, there would be a point to meet but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn elaborated in her remarks, there is more substance to it than that. We want to know whether the obligation is on every party to an agreement or only on one.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I may just answer that now, there is an Amendment on that subject. It arises not on this Clause but on Clause 8. It will be perfectly appropriate to debate it then, but it is quite irrelevant to this Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: I am perfectly prepared to debate Clause 8 when we come to it, but I am not prepared to leave Clause 7 until I have got it in a perfectly satisfactory state. Why must this be worded in the passive tense? Why say of an agreement that it shall be registered when that makes no sense at all? Why not alter the wording, as I suggest, so that it reads, "every party to every agreement to which this part of this Act applies shall cause such agreement to be registered"? If it said that, we should all know where we were and everything else would then fall into line. We should then have Clause 8 laying down that the parties would be required to give such-and-such particulars and everything would follow on perfectly properly and logically, and we should not have to spell it out, by some process of crossword juggling such as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests, to understand the meaning. In all seriousness, I ask the President to try to word this beyond any possibility of doubt. We are trying to impose obligations to have these agreements registered.
There is another point. Suppose there is an agreement to which there are six parties. It is quite likely that any one party might think that one of the other five was going to register it. It might be an agreement to which there are two or three principal parties and two or three subsidiary parties. In all honesty, one or other party might say, "I am not directed by the Bill to do anything. It is not my duty. If this has to be registered I assume that someone else—one of the


principal parties—will register it." Each of the parties might say "This is not my responsibility." There is nothing in the Bill which places any positive obligation on any particular party to do something and each might quite honestly leave it to the others.
We want to remove that risk, and my view is that that risk can only be removed by saying positively that the parties shall register the agreement. For the life of me I cannot understand why the President is unwilling to accept that suggestion. I hope that before he invites us to accept Clause 7 we shall have his assurance that this most important point which my hon. Friend has raised will be much more fully considered.

8.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sure that we do not want to spend a good deal of further time on this, because what it comes down to is merely a point of clarification—but a very important point of clarification. I hope that the President will read carefully the very able speech—if I may say so with respect—of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). There really is a point of substance here.
I will be perfectly frank about all this. After some consideration I read this as meaning that the only thing that has to be registered in connection with an agreement is the particulars. I grant that at once to the Parliamentary Secretary. But it is confusing when we find that in Clause 7 no obligation at all is imposed for registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made a very powerful argument in favour of a possible view that the obligation for registration would lie upon the registrar—which, of course, is not the President's intention at all. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will very carefully consider what my hon. Friend said.
Then we come to the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave as to how the particulars were to be furnished, and how, indeed, this comes within Clause 7. The registration under Clause 7 is done by the furnishing of the particulars under Clause 8. From that he argues that as the particulars have to be furnished by the parties, so he says, the registration under Clause 7 is also to be done by the parties. That is, of course, a logical

sequence, but his reasoning for that is the provision for default in Clause 8 (5), and as, he says, there is default in furnishing particulars, and as the registrar may serve notice on any party to the agreement, he infers that the party to the agreement is the person in default; and that a person, in order to be in default, must be the person who is under the obligation to furnish the particulars under Clause 8 (1) that a person is the person who is under the obligation to register the agreement under Clause 7. Well, of course, as my hon. Friends have said, that is an extraordinary far-fetched way of finding out that the obligation for registration lies upon the parties to the agreement. I must confess that I did not arrive at that conclusion, and I still beg to question whether that conclusion is correct.
If under Clause 8 (5) there is default in furnishing particulars, then, if the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn is correct, under this Clause the default, if there is any duty at all, will be the default of the registrar, but I beg to question even whether default is the proper word here. Default means the omission of a duty. There is no duty imposed. There can be no duty imposed, and there can hardly be any default if default means more than omission, because there is no sanction in this Bill, as I understand it, for the mere omission to register particulars. At a later stage, after the Registrar asks for the particulars and they have not been provided and so on, we get it, but we are dealing with Clause 7 as elucidated by Clause 8 (1), and for that, as I see this Bill, there is no penalty. By that I do not mean a criminal offence in any way, but there is no loss, no sanction of any kind, no consequence of any kind flowing from the mere omission to register the particulars.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is not this what the Committee will debate on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment to Clause 8 in page 7, line 44, and can we not wait until then to deal with this point?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, we cannot wait until then to deal with this point, because it is not the same point. It is put in for the same reason but it is not the same point I am not dealing with Clause 8, page 7, line 44, but with the


point which the Parliamentary Secretary made in regard to subsection (5). In that subsection there is no default because there is no duty. There is no duty because there is no sanction and we are completely vague about it all. I do not want to spend time on this matter. It can be dealt with very simply. As I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, there is not really a difference in intention between us.
The intention of everybody is that the registration should be made by the parties and the obligation should be on the parties to register. If that is so, why not adopt the suggestion—if not the precise wording, on the same lines—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and simply say outright in Clause 7 that the obligation for registration shall be on the parties to the agreement, and say it when it first appears, because that will make it so much clearer to everybody? It can be done on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East or by connecting Clause 7 (1) with Clause 8 (1) and accepting our Amendment in Clause 8 when we come to it. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider this matter before Report.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(PARTICULARS TO BE FURNISHED FOR REGISTRATION.)

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, to leave out from the second "the" to "to" in line 8, and to insert:
responsible persons as hereinafter provided shall furnish the following particulars.

The Deputy - Chairman (Major Anstruther-Gray): I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee to take with this Amendment the Amendment in line 10, after "Act," insert "by the parties thereto," and in line 36, line 42, at end insert the proposed new subsection (5).

Mr. Wade: I agree that it would be convenient to take those Amendments together, Major Anstruther-Gray.
The effect of the first of these Amendments would be that the first words in Clause 8 would read:

Within the period specified in this section the responsible persons as hereinafter provided shall furnish the following particulars.
By virtue of the proposed new subsection (5), it would be clear that it would be the duty of all parties to an agreement to ensure that particulars required to be furnished were furnished, and furthermore where a trade association was responsible for an agreement there would be a duty upon the trade association to furnish particulars to the registrar.
It may be, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has pointed out, that there is an implied obligation on the parties to an agreement to register by virtue of the fact that there is a penalty if they fail to do so, but it would certainly improve this Clause if it were made clear that there was a duty to register and that it was the duty of the parties to an agreement to ensure that the agreement was registered. I feel sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will support me, having regard to the views that she expressed in the debate on the last Clause.
I do not think I need press the Amendment any further, but I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that he will either accept the two Amendments in my name, or alternatively that he will introduce some wording before the Report stage to make it quite clear that there is a responsibility on the parties to an agreement to register the agreement. It does not follow that each party should have to register one by one. So long as the agreement is registered, the need is satisfied. It should be made clear that the parties to the agreement are the persons who are called upon to register the agreement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I hope that my rising at this moment does not cut across any of the discussion. It is, of course, really the parties to the agreement who have to register the agreement. That is the answer. I am as anxious as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to see that the Bill does that, but—and I think I carry the Committee with me in this—not that all the parties should do it. I am sure it was not in anybody's mind that everybody would have to go through the physical act of doing it. That would clearly flood the Registrar with paper. Each one has the obligation which is discharged if any one of them carries it out.
The next point that was raised related to the question of the association. Of course, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West is on a perfectly good point, and that point must be properly covered. There is an Amendment which the Government have tabled to Clause 11, page 10, line 31, to add a new subsection (4) which I think covers this point.
If I may explain the position to the hon. Gentleman, the association could be caught up in one of two ways. If the association makes the agreement, it is the party to the agreement. In that case, the obligation is upon the association to register. If it does not make an agreement in that sense it is not a party, and so there is nothing for it to register at all. But it might be brought in another way. It might be issuing recommendations, in which case once again there would be an obligation to register. I think that is right and proper.
Therefore, I am in entire sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I accept his point. But I do not think the wording which he uses in the Amendment is very happy, if I may say so. The phrase
Where any Association as aforesaid is in any way responsible for an agreement
is not a very happy one, and I think it would be better dealt with on the basis of the Amendment which we shall be moving to Clause 11 and which we shall discuss in detail when we come to it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As the President of the Board of Trade appreciates, we are in complete agreement with the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and we are very much relieved to hear what the President of the Board of Trade has just said.
There is just one matter about which I feel some difficulty, and that is his reference to his Amendment to Clause 11, page 10, line 31. I presume that he means that he will bring in an Amendment on the lines of that Clause so far as the association is concerned. But, of course, in that Amendment it is envisaged that there should be a notice by the Registrar to the association before the association is brought within its ambit at all. Of course, if that were done within the Amendment which he contemplates introducing in place of the Amendment moved

by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, then quite possibly it would defeat the whole purpose of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I take it, therefore, that he does not contemplate that.
As I understand, he contemplates, first, that all parties to an agreement should be under an obligation to register particulars, but that that obligation should be satistied if any one of them registers; secondly, that where there are recommendations or matters of that kind by a trade association, there should be a similar obligation upon a trade association without any notice having been served upon it first by the Registrar.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I think that that is right; they are in the same position as an ordinary party to an arrangement of this kind.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Wade: Did I understand the President of the Board of Trade to say that he would introduce some appropriate words to cover the first of my Amendments as well as the one which deals with trade associations and the duty of furnishing particulars? It is the way in which the first Clause is worded about which I am not entirely happy, where it merely suggests that certain particulars shall be given. It does not state who shall furnish them.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The difficulty about the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is this—though I know it is not what he intends—that it has the effect of making it obligatory for each party to register the agreement. I am sure that that is not what he has in mind. I believe that if he will leave it with a combination of the Clause as it stands, and this later Amendment to Clause 11, his point will be met.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I have been looking at this Clause, and, if I may say so with respect, I think we ought to be very careful about amending really for the sake of amending. It has been said that there is no obligation on anybody to register an agreement. It may be that it comes later in the Clause, but, really, this Clause is quite clear about that.
What the Clause sets out to do is to say that particulars are to be furnished


for registration. It is true that in subsection (1) it does not say who shall register, but it is equally true that subsection (5) makes it clear, and, indeed, mandatory, by providing that if there should be any default in the furnishing of the particulars required under this Clause then the Registrar may—it is quite right that it should be "may", because there may well be cases where it ought not to be compulsory—serve notice upon any person within the United Kingdom who is a party.
That is a great improvement upon this Amendment because it is selective in this respect. There is no sense in serving notice upon everybody; that would be a work of supererogation; but the point is that the service of the notice is an essential and effective step, and, once that is done, that is all that is necessary to be done. We have in the Clause who are the parties to an existing agreement, and then the subsection goes on:
(or, in the case of default in furnishing particulars of the determination of an agreement, any person within the United Kingdom who was party thereto immediately before its determination) …
It is a closely worded provision, and it protects the position in all respects, so far as I can see. The Registrar can call upon that essential person to make good his default in not registering within fourteen days.
I have looked at the provision which brings in the High Court. If necessary, the Registrar can move the High Court by way of application, and the High Court can make an order directing a person to make good his default or authorise the Registrar to treat as particulars duly furnished to him any document or information he has relating to the agreement. It seems to me, therefore, that that is fairly comprehensive. Whilst there is, of course, great scope for amendment in this Bill, nevertheless I do not think that it is right to amend something which, on this particular point, does not really need amendment. I would ask the President to look at this provision to see whether it is not all-sufficient in its own wording as now drafted.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to make one small contribution on a point which has not been touched upon during the brief debate on this Amendment. The President has been good enough to criti

cise the wording of the Amendment, suggesting that it is unhappy. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the wording of the Clause is unsatisfactory and unhappy, for the reason that it is not in direct language. The passive voice rather than the active voice is used.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Clause could not have been drawn in such a way as to put a duty more clearly upon the shoulders of the parties to an agreement. Why could it not have been drafted like this: "The parties to any such agreement or one of them must furnish particulars"? Why could not that have been used instead of saying,
the following particulars shall be furnished to the Registrar"?
Why could it not have been put in the direct form—"The parties to an agreement or one of them or their nominee shall be under a duty to furnish to the Registrar the particulars"?
I am glad that the President takes the view that it is necessary to indicate who is to furnish the particulars. The Clause as it stands is defective, because it does not indicate the person who is to furnish the particulars. The Amendment inserts the words "by the parties". If my suggestion were adopted it would read "the parties to an agreement … shall be under a duty to furnish to the Registrar the particulars …"
Similar reasoning applies to the second Amendment. In subsection (4) we find the words "shall be furnished"; again, it is in the passive voice and not the active voice. It is much too vague. I will not go on with the other line of the rhyme, but a Statute should not be vague; it should be clear and direct.

Mr. Wade: I understand that the Minister intends to introduce appropriate wording on Report amending the Clause to cover this point. If that were so, I should withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, because if he is not satisfied the hon. Member should press his Amendment. As far as the parties are concerned, I see no need to amend the Clause; I have had powerful reinforcement from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) for the view that the Clause does what it is intended to


do—places an obligation on all parties to register, but ensures that the obligation is carried out if one of them does so.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: There is some misunderstanding for which neither of us is to blame. I understood that the President would introduce an Amendment to the Clause to make it perfectly clear that it covered parties and associations in the sense that I put to him. The whole point of my getting to my feet was that I should be satisfied that his proposed Amendment would cover precisely the point I had put.

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no difference between us on what we wish to do. We want the parties to have an obligation discharged if one of them fulfils it. In the case of an association, whether it is party to an agreement or whether it is impliedly a party, we want it to register in the same way. I am sure that the Clause as it stands, with the further Amendment to Clause 11, page 11, line 31, carries that out, and I will give an undertaking that the policy on which I think we are all agreed will be carried out.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: There is only the question—a very important question

—of the interpretation of the Clause and, of course, not merely the interpretation but the clarity of the Clause. Very considerable arguments have been put forward about this. We could have saved a great deal of time if the President had simply said that he would introduce an Amendment to clarify his intention on the Clause, I must say that the Clause seems unsatisfactory and I hope that the matter will be pressed.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I have any way of clarifying the question I will be happy to do so, but it would be wrong to give an undertaking and, on the arguments addressed to me, I cannot see that it would be made clearer than it is at present. I am glad to have the support of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester.

The Temporary Chairman: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) wishes to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Wade: I do not want to be awkward about it, but I am not entirely convinced about the matter.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 198.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[8.41 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Foster, John


Aitken, W. T.
Cole, Norman
Freeth, D. K.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, Sir David


Arbuthnot, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Ashton, H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gibson-Watt, D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glover D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Godber, J. B.


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Barlow, Sir John
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, H. R.


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dance, J. C. G.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant-Ferris Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Green, A.


Bidgood, J. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bishop, F. P.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Black, C. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Gurden, Harold


Body, R. F.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick&amp;L'm'tn)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J, B. (Bournemouh, West)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hay, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brooman-White, R. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.
Fell, A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, Sir David
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey




Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Hope, Lord John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Howard, John (Test)
Marples, A. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Mathew, R.
Shepherd, William


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Maude, Angus
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Mawby, R. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Neave, Airey
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemp town)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Teeling, W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Joseph, Sir Keith
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Keegan, D.
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Kerr, H. W.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Kimball, M.
Partridge, E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lagden, G. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vosper, D. F.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Leburn, W. G.

Walker-Smith, D. C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pott, H. P.
Wall, Major Patrick


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Linstead, Sir H.N.
Profumo, J, D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Webbe, Sir H.


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, J. E.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rawlinson, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McKibbin, A. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Macleod, Rt. Hn.Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)



MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Madden, Martin
Robson-Brown, W.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, J, D.
Hannan, W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hastings S.


Awbery, S. S.
Daines, P.
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Herbison, Miss M.


Baird, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hobson, C. R.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, Horace


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Houghton, Douglas


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Deer, G.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Delargy, H. J.
Hubbard, T. F.


Benson, G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blackburn, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fienburgh, W.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brockway, A. F.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech( Wakefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, C.


Champion, A. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Grey, C. F.
King, Dr. H. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Lawson, G. M.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Ledger, R. J.


Coldrick, W.
Grimond, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hale, Leslie
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)







Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Lindgren, G. S.
Paton, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Logan, D. C.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


MacColl, J. E.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McGhee, H. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McInnes, J.
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thornton, E.


McLeavy, Frank
Probert, A. R.
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Proctor, W. T.
Tomney, F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mahon, Simon
Randall, H. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Redhead, E. C.
Wade, D. W.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E.



Mason, Roy
Held, William
Weitzman, D.


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
West, D. G.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Moody, A. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mort, D. L.
Royle, C.
Willey, Frederick


Moss, R.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oram, A. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Woof, R. E.


Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Oswald, T.
Snow, J. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sorensen, R. W.



Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sparks, J, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. J. T. Price


Pargiter, G. A.
Stones, W. (Consett)

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, to leave out from "agreement" to the end of the Clause and to add:
the agreement shall be unlawful in respect of the restrictions by virtue of which this part of the Act applies to the agreement and such order may be made as might be made if the said restrictions were restrictions determined to be contrary to the public interest under the provisions hereinafter contained but no criminal proceedings shall lie by reason of the said agreement being hereby made unlawful".

The Temporary Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the first Amendment on the next Clause, in the name of the hon. and learned Member, in Clause 9, page 8, line 26. leave out from "thereto" to end of line 28.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes, Major Anstruther-Gray.
The Amendment deals with the position which arises in the event of default in furnishing the particulars for registration. As I understand the Bill, the extraordinary position at the moment is that no consequence or penalty of any kind would follow from failure to register. We have heard a great deal in the last hour or so about the obligation to register and about the intention of the President of the Board of Trade that the obligation to register should be upon the parties to the agreement, and yet the Bill contains no

consequence of any kind following failure to fulfil that obligation. Therefore, as I suggested when discussing the last Amendment, to talk about default in registering when there is no sanction to an obligation to register, is nothing short of humbug.
What we propose in the Amendment is that the agreement, if not registered, should be treated as an agreement which has been found by the court to be contrary to the public interest. Subsection (5) provides that
If default is made in furnishing particulars … the Registrar may serve notice
upon a party
to the agreement … requiring him to make good the default …
Eventually, the Registrar can make an application to the High Court, which can order the person to furnish the particulars. Before any action whatever can be taken under the Clause, however, the Registrar must find out whether there is an agreement in existence or whether there is reasonable cause for believing that an agreement exists.
Exactly the same provisions arise in Clauses 11 and 12. Various remedies are provided about furnishing particulars if the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that there is an agreement and if he has got hold of the parties to the agreement. Nothing whatever follows from


the consequence of failing to register. In each case, the Registrar somehow or other has to divine that an agreement is in being, then get hold of the parties to the agreement, press them for particulars and then bring them before the Court before there is any effective remedy under the Bill.
If there is an obligation to register, and if the intention is to make that obligation effective, why on earth should an agreement which is not registered not be treated as an agreement which is contrary to the public interest? Let us consider a case where a person thinks that he might or might not have an agreement subject to registration. There will be a vast number of agreements where it will be very debatable whether they come within Clause 5 or not and whether they are subject to registration or not.
A party to the agreement may say with the greatest good will and honesty in the world, "I am doubtful about this and therefore I shall not register." The Registrar will have to find out before he can do anything about it There is no obligation to say to the Registrar, "I am doubtful whether the agreement is within the Bill or not. What about it?"
The Bill gives a very big loophole to the less scrupulous people and gives a big impetus to those who are scrupulous but who honestly believe that there is a doubt whether they ought to register under the Bill. It is up to the Registrar to find out about the agreements and take the rather long drawn out course which is open to him under other provisions of the Bill.
Clause 10 provides for rectification of the register so that if a person thinks he is registered under the Bill when he ought not to be so registered he can go to the High Court and get the register rectified so that his name is crossed out and no longer appears on the register. It is hardly conceivable that under the Bill a person will register when he thinks he may not be subject to registration and then apply to have rectification of the register, whereas if the principle of the Amendment is accepted, he will have scope under Clause 10 to go to the court and say, "This is not an agreement which ought to be registered. Can I have a decision of the Court on it?"
Therefore, the course which he should take in matters of doubt would be to

register. By reason of registration, the Registrar will know about the agreement. If he does not register, the agreement should be put in the same position as an agreement which the Restrictive Practices Court has found to be contrary to the public interest. By that method we should have a comprehensive and effective scheme of registration. I completely fail to understand why the Bill stands as it does and why there is no provision in it, as we on this side of the Committee propose, that in a case of non-registration the contract should be treated as one contrary to the public interest.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), as he has said, was not dealing with the vast majority of cases. Everybody recognises that in the vast majority of cases this problem will not arise. There will be an agreement and it will be registered in the ordinary way. Then there are cases where there will be some doubt or dispute about it and it will be for the parties to consult the Registrar. If there is honest disagreement there is provision in Clause 8 for the Registrar to serve notice and, if necessary, the dispute can be dealt with by the High Court. I believe that everybody will agree that that satisfactorily deals with probably the vast majority of cases.
At the same time, we must not omit the possibility that there might be cases of deliberate failure to register. I am somewhat impressed by the force of the arguments which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East has addressed to the Committee—that there is really no penalty here and no disability for the man who deliberately does not register at all.
9.0 p.m.
I have given some thought to this matter in the light of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I think that perhaps his Amendment tends to go a little bit wide. That is to say, I think that if a man does not register it is going rather far to say that an order should be made putting that agreement in the wrong for all time. But I think that he should have a penalty of some kind inflicted upon him in those circumstances.
It may be possible, if the Committee agrees, to consider adding to Clause 8, subsections (5, a) and (5, b) a new paragraph (c) which would have the effect of


enabling the registrar, where there had been a deliberate default in registration, to apply for an order under Clause 15, as though the agreement had been found contrary to the public interest, which is really the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I think that one should add some facility for the party in those circumstances to apply after a period of, say, two years to have his case considered on its merits, on the ordinary criteria of Clause 16. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would think that unreasonable. The party concerned should have some opportunity of coming back and having the case considered on its merits.
In my view, if such a provision were introduced, I think that it would very seldom have to be used and that in the vast majority of cases ordinary registration or ordinary arrangements about notice would apply. But I would not rule out—and I would be happy to consider between now and the Report stage in the light of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman—the possibility of somewhat strengthening the last subsection of Clause 8 in the manner which I have described.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am much obliged to the President, but I am sure that he will not quarrel with me when I say that this does not really meet the point that we are making. First, he envisaged, of course, that the parties to the agreement would in the vast majority of cases of difficulty or doubt consult the Registrar. I do not doubt for a moment that there are cases in which that would happen. The difficulty is that there is no obligation at all on those parties to consult the Registrar. So all that would happen in these cases would be that those who are the more scrupulous would consult the Registrar and the less scrupulous would not consult the Registrar. That is just not good legislation.
Then the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the point about putting the agreement in the wrong for all time, and he rather objected to the course that we are suggesting in the Amendment, because he said that it would put the agreement in the wrong for all time without provision for the remedy. I may be quite wrong on this, as the President suggested that I am, but, as I understand the Bill

and the operation of this Amendment, the effect of the Amendment would be to put the agreement in exactly the same position as an agreement which had come before the Court and had been condemned as contrary to the public interest, and, therefore, bring automatically into operation the provisions for reviewing the decision at a later stage. I thought that that point had been completely covered by our Amendment, but if not I am completely at one with the right hon. Gentleman in maintaining the principle of it, and I will not spend more time on that.
On the last point which the right hon. Gentleman made when he was good enough to suggest the introduction of a paragraph (c) to subsection (5) dealing with cases of deliberate default, I will tell him—and this is the crux of the matter—why, in my view, I regret that it does not really go far enough. Subsection (5) including a new paragraph (c), would be governed by the opening words:
If default is made in furnishing particulars…the Registrar may serve notice upon any person … who is a party to the agreement … and if that person fails to make good the default
So, first, we have no consequence, no penalty resulting from failure to register; secondly, we have the position in which the registrar must serve notice upon the party and, therefore, must have found out that the agreement is in existence before any penalty at all arises upon the party; and, thirdly, the party must then fail to make good the default before subsection (3) comes into operation.
Therefore, it does not meet what is really the gravamen of our case on this Amendment, which is that there should be an automatic penalty by reason of failure to register. Whilst I appreciate that the suggestion made by the President of the Board of Trade would be an improvement on the Clause as drafted, it does not really meet the substance of this Amendment.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that that is a fair point to make do not think it would be right to say that failure to register should automatically, and in all cases, render the agreement unlawful. At the same time, it would be reasonable to put it in as a possible order which could be made by the Registrar in the case of


deliberate default. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Registrar has to find out. In any case, somebody has to find out. If nobody will ever know about this under any arrangement. it will not matter very much whether it is lawful or unlawful if it has escaped the attention of every one in the country that it is going on. So the hon. and learned Gentleman will not gain much or lose much in practice by requiring the Registrar to take the initiative in a matter of this kind. However, I appreciate that there is a difference in context. I shall still pursue the suggestion which I made, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman presses his Amendment or not, because I think it is right that there should be some strengthening of the latter part of Clause 8, and I am indebted to him for drawing attention to this point.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The President of the Board of Trade is very fair about this, and, if I may say so with respect, it helps the work of the Committee substantially. There is a definite difference of substance between us here. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that under our provision there would not be much practical significance because in any case people would have to find out about it. Of course, there would be practical significance. The practical significance of it would be that the contract would be unenforceable. Many people might join together in a ring as parties to an agreement. It is an entirely different position when they try to enforce it against outside people, or amongst themselves, when some amongst them say, "This is not a legitimate agreement, but I have joined it because I am more or less obliged to do so."
There is a definite question of substance involved here. It is a grave defect in the effectiveness of the Bill, and I cannot ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I want to support briefly what my hon. and learned Friend has said. We are grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his willingness to look at the point. He takes the point of view that everyone who ought to register will register or will go along to the Registrar to find out if it is the kind of agreement which should be registered. We say that there will be people who will try to avoid registration. The more likely it is that their agreement would be declared by the Court to be contrary to public interest, the more an unscrupulous person will try to avoid not only registering the agreement but letting the Registrar know about it.
I agree that such persons might be few, but we have heard a lot in recent weeks in the House about the value of deterrents. It is much more likely that those people would hesitate before avoiding their clear duty to register if they knew that subsequent discovery would mean that they would be placed in a less favourable position. If all that happens when they are discovered is that they are then placed on the register, one or two unscrupulous characters might seek that chance of avoiding their duties under the Act, as it will then have become.
While it would be undesirable for even a few people to escape, as may be the case under the Clause as at present drafted, I think it would be grossly unfair to those traders who do the honest and proper thing and register their agreements. I hope, therefore, that the President will pay due regard to what my hon. and learned Friend has said and will see whether the Clause cannot be strengthened along the lines of this Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 199.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[9.10 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Boyle, Sir Edward


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, C.)
Braine, B. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Armstrong, C. W.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Ashton, H.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Black, C. W.
Burden, F. F. A.


Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Campbell, Sir David




Carr, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitman, I. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, H. P.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, J. E.


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Redmayne, M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rippon, A. G. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kaberry, D.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Keegan, D,
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robson-Brown, W.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Kerr, H. W.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lagden, G. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. a.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Leburn, W. G.
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Linstead, Sir N. H.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fort, R.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stanley Capt. Hon. Richard


Foster, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Freeth, D. K.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gammans, Sir David
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Glover, D.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Teeling, W.


Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Green, A.
Marples, A. E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marshall, Douglas
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mathew, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Waterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webbe, Sir H.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Neave, Airey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wills, C. (Bridgwater)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Wood, Hon. R.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, H. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. E. Wakefield.




NOES



Ainsley, J. W.
Benson, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blenkinsop, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.



Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Chapman, W. D.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Baird, J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Clunie, J.


Balfour, A.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Coldrick, W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brockway, A. F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)







Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, E. C.


Cronin, J. D.
Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William


Cullen, Mrs. A,
King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, R. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwoh)
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, J. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Steele, T.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy

Swingler, S. T.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thornton, E.


Grimond, J.
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Hale, Leslie
Moss, R.
Tomney, F.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Usborne, H. C.


Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.
Wade, D. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
West, D. G.


Holmes, Horace
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hubbard, T. F.
Parker, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Popplewell, E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woof, R. E.



Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Pryde, D. J.



Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made: In page 8, line 16, after "Scotland", insert:
and Northern Ireland respectively".

In line 17, at the end, add:
or the High Court of Northern Ireland".[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the debate that we have just had, nobody on this side of the Committee can feel happy about the Clause as it has been left after the last remarks of the President of the Board of Trade. There was an Amendment, in page 7, line 34, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall", but it was not called. This is another illustration of

the unsatisfactory drafting of the Clause and of the apparent lack of determination on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to see that full effect is given to what he always professes is his intention with regard to registration.
I hope that on this point he will give us an assurance that in considering the Amendment he is to put down at the end of subsection (5) by the insertion of another paragraph (c) he will take the opportunity of changing "may" to "shall" in order that there may be no possible doubt it is intended that if there is default in the furnishing of particulars there shall not be discretion on the part of the Registrar whether to take action or not, but that it shall be obligatory upon him, as soon as any default in


furnishing particulars comes to his notice, to take the next steps in ensuring that the default is corrected.
There are so many loopholes in the Bill and so many opportunities for procrastination between the initial stages and the final stage at which an undesirable restrictive practice would be prohibited, that we are anxious to stop up the loopholes and to remove the opportunities for delay.
In his reconsideration of Clauses 7 and 8 I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take heed of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) about them. The Clauses hang together, and if they are to be made to work it is essential that the passive mood in which they are at present couched shall be changed into the active mood in order to lay a specific obligation on the parties to an agreement to take the initiative in registering.

Mrs. Castle: We are still far from satisfied that our objection to Clause 7, which I was told would be satisfied by Clause 8, has beer; met. It is clear from what the President of the Board of Trade has said that he does not stand four-square on the duties of the parties to an agreement to register. In the first place, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that we must take his word for it that under the Clause the parties must furnish particulars. I do not like to take the President's word for anything if it is contradicted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester. North-East (Sir L. UngoedThomas).
Leaving that point aside, I still say that one question of great importance remains unanswered. That is the question of when: when does the furnishing of particulars become legally obligatory? I would point out to the President that to furnish information is not the same as to volunteer it. As the wording now stands, the parties to an agreement will surely feel that they are not refusing to furnish particulars if no one asks for them, and this interpretation is borne out by subsection (5) which makes it quite clear that it is not an offence to fail to furnish particulars. The only offence is failure to respond to the request of the registrar to make good the omission.
The President has said that he will

strengthen that subsection—we are not quite clear how—but everything will depend on this, because unless the President by his later Amendment penalises the failure to volunteer particulars we shall have the situation which in the debate on Clause 7 I suggested we were in danger of having, namely, the placing of the legal onus to register on the Registrar. As the Clause now stands, the parties to an agreement can, with impunity, fail to furnish particulars until the Registrar discovers that failure and calls on the parties to remedy it. That, of course, is equivalent to putting the initiative for all action in connection with registration in the hands of the Registrar.
Taken in conjunction with Clause 11, we find that the Registrar has to go about unearthing agreements which ought to be but have not been registered. We are left with this, that the whole emphasis of these two Clauses is on the fact that we treat extremely lightly the failure to furnish information. We do not make it legally obligatory to furnish it, but merely make it legally obligatory not to refuse to furnish it when the Registrar has found out that it has not been volunteered. That was my whole complaint on Clause 7, and I am still unsatisfied that the President is with us here or that he intends, in fact, to take the steps he ought to take. For my part, I will be satisfied with nothing less than a later Amendment which will penalise the failure to volunteer information.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I can deal quite shortly with the points which have been raised. First, there is the question of whether the word should be "may" or "shall". I think I have heard longer debates on that matter than on most others. That Amendment was not selected, but its effect, had it been carried, would have been one which I do not think was really intended; namely, to impose on the Registrar a duty to serve a notice on every party to an agreement. I really cannot think that that was intended. It would be almost impossible to carry it out.
The hon. Lacy the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—who, I recognise, holds with absolute sincerity the view that this Clause is neither clear enough nor tough enough—made her points quite clearly, and has elaborated


one or two of them again now. "When" is laid down in subsection (4) of this Clause. It will be laid down in the order which the Board of Trade makes. She then said that the Clause should be strengthened. I know that she is not satisfied with what I have said about strengthening it, and that there is an honest difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee as to what is appropriate to insert with regard to that point. I will not repeat what I said before, but although the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) did not accept my suggestion and pressed his Amendment, I am proposing to go forward with the arrangement which I suggested for putting rather stronger terms in Clause 8 (5).

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I think this Clause is misconceived. I criticised it a little earlier when I pointed out the manner in which it was drafted. The Clause is misconceived because it contains much which should be in regulations. Elsewhere in the Bill the Registrar is given power to make rules and regulations, and many other things which are set out in this Clause are not properly the subject of a Act of Parliament at all. They should come under the power which is given to the Registrar to make regulations. I am not going to weary the Committee by going through this Clause with its six subsections; hon. Members have only to look at it to see that it contains a lot of things that normally are put into rules and regulations and not into an Act.
As to the scheme of the Clause, it is drafted in the passive voice. Take, for example, subsection (1):
Within the period specified in this section the following particulars shall be furnished to the Registrar …
The Clause as drafted did not even say by whom they should be furnished. The Clause would be much better if it were put in the active voice, with some such words as:
The parties to any agreement or their nominees or somebody representing them shall be under an obligation or a duty to furnish to the Registrar such particulars as are set out

in rules and regulations to be formulated by him under the power given in the statute.
I think those criticisms go to the root of this Clause, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider the Clause from that angle with a view to shortening and clarifying it and making it a more effective instrument for the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Jay: I am a little surprised by what the President of the Board of Trade said about the words "shall" and "may" in subsection (5). He said that if the proposed Amendment, which has not been called, were adopted, then there would be an obligation on the Registrar to serve a notice on every person who is a party to the agreement. I think he will agree that subsection (5) says "any person" and not "every person". If he interprets "any" to mean "every", I agree with him; but that is not what we propose. Would it not be possible to discover some form of drafting which would effectively substitute "shall" for "may" and make "any" mean "anyone" and not "everyone"? It seems to me that if we do not do that, we are in an odd position.
The whole thing, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has pointed out, is in this grossly passive voice. First of all, we are told that certain agreements are subject to registration. The Bill does not say who is to register. The Bill then says that certain particulars shall be furnished. It does not say who is to furnish them. Then we are told that the safeguard against that is that if there is default in furnishing them something will happen, and then we find that it may happen and not that it will happen.
Even if the position were that it definitely would happen, all that is going to happen is that the persons—if there are some ghostly persons at this stage—will be required to make good the default by furnishing the information. I do not think that can be so terrible. Is it really impossible so to frame this Clause that even when we have got to this stage and there has been this default—and perhaps a deliberate default—there is an obligation on the Registrar definitely to require at least one of the parties to the agreement, all of whom presumably have


defaulted, definitely to make good that default?

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO THE REGISTER.)

Mr. R. Edwards: I beg to move. in page 8, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where an entry is made in the special section of the register an indication to that elect shall be given in that part of the register which is open to public inspection.
As the Committee will realise, this is a very simple Amendment which does not require a long explanation. Subsection (3) of this Clause deals with the maintenance of a special register which is to contain particulars of certain agreements which the President considers should not, in the public interest, be disclosed. It is to contain all particulars of these agreements, disclosure of which would be against the public interest.
The simple purpose of this Amendment is to bring out the necessity of having in the general register which is open to public inspection a reference to the special circumstances of the agreements registered in the special register. That seems a simple request to make. If there is an indication in the general register that agreements have been recorded in a special register, just leaving it at that without giving all the necessary details, that should be some guidance to interested parties that there is such a reference in the special register.
It seems to me that some, though not all, of the information contained in this special register will have to be disclosed from time to time. For instance, when there is a case presented which, it is suggested, vitally affects the public interest, some information would have to be submitted by the Board of Trade. Merely to remain silent will not do. Some aspect of the reference in the special register will surely have to be disclosed.
Unless this Clause is amended, we may find very grave difficulties. For example, how can the special agreements remain secret if their provisions are quoted during proceedings which are open to the public? Before the Court, when proceedings are open to the public, some summary of the agreements will be neces

sary. On the other hand, if it is the intention that, when dealing with these aspects of the special register, the Court or board shall sit in camera, then the whole purpose of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be lost.
At every stage of the Bill the President has gone out of his way to say that the publicity arising out of registration is the most important deterrent and will create a situation in which many restrictive practices will be automatically dropped. I presume that there is no suggestion of Star Chamber proceedings and no suggestion that proceedings will be taken in camera because agreements have been registered in the special register and because the President considers that there are secret formulae which, in the interest of certain industries and firms, should not be publicly known.
I am a layman and a trade union general secretary, not a lawyer. This seems to be a question for lawyers, and I hope they will argue the pros and cons of the issue which I have raised. It seems to me that the problem may be covered in Clause 27, but I do not know, and I should like information on the subject.
May I underline the point involved in this simple Amendment? I ask that where there is an entry in the special register it should be indicated as a special registration in the general register. This will not give access to the special information, but simply knowledge that it has been registered elsewhere. That is the point of the Amendment, which seems very reasonable, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am in favour of the principle of publicity in these things. I think that in the great majority of cases any evils which flow from publicity are far less than those which flow from hushing things up, and I would always believe, as a matter of policy, that we should tend to the idea of the fullest publicity possible.
But if we are to put on the Statute Book a Bill, such as this Bill, embodying that kind of principle we must be scrupulously careful to see that in proper cases we do not, either deliberately or by accident, let information leak out which is secret. If we failed in that it would


not be a question only of the damage in that case. It would damage the whole public appreciation of the Measure. We need only make one or two mistakes of this kind to bring the Measure into thorough disrepute. Other countries have found this to be so and their legislation has come under considerable attack. I am clear, therefore, that we must have in the Bill a provision for putting matters dealt with in Clause 9 (3) in a special register.
I think that ought to be used with discretion and I do not think the idea should get out that anybody who feels he would not like his particular arrangements to be published can be put on the special register. If I may say so, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) for having moved the Amendment, enabling me to say that that is the policy which I wish to have pursued. At the same time, it is not so easy to meet the precise point which he makes. It sounds simple enough to give an indication that there is a separate agreement which is registered, but how is that to be done without naming the parties between whom it is taking place? If, in fact, we named the parties and revealed the types of business it would rapidly become very evident what sort of arrangement was concerned.
9.45 p.m.
In the cases I am considering, incalculable harm might be done to certain sections of our export trade and we would do a very great deal of damage to the Bill and to the cause of all hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, who want to get on and do something effective about restrictive practices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having tabled the Amendment and given me the opportunity of saying that I really lean to the side of publicity in this matter. I feel that this special register should be used only with discretion and caution, but I hope the hon. Member will not press me to put upon it hints that there should be information here and names of parties given there. That would be almost worse than a full disclosure. There would be comment and pressure to say, "Was it this or that?" I think that the idea should be to keep the special register very small.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am very glad the President has said what he did in indicating his leaning against secrecy in

these matters, but I do not think that his speech was at all persuasive when he said that this should not be embodied in the Statute. I do not see why it should not be embodied in the Statute. If we have a principle of which we approve and it is relevant to the subject of the Statute, I do not see why we should not incorporate it in the Statute so that it may have the force which legislation can give it.
This Clause contains the embodiment of a very dangerous principle, the principle of secrecy or concealment of matters in which the public are vitally interested. That is a principle which, if implemented at all, should be implemented with the very greatest care. Therefore I support the Amendment, particularly as it is a second best to the Amendment in my name, which was not called. My Amendment was directed to page 8, line 37, to leave out from "manufacture" to "being" in line 39, and was designed to omit from this subsection (3, b) the words:
… or as to the presence, absence or situation of any mineral or other deposits or as to any other similar matter …
The Amendment we are discussing as a second best would add at the end of the Clause the words:
Provided that where an entry is made in the special section of the register an indication to that effect shall be given in that part of the register which is open to public inspection.
This raises a most important subject. It relates to the problem whether the presence, the absence or situation of minerals should be a ground—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. The hon. and learned Member is dangerously near being ruled out of order. He must not discuss the Amendment which was not called.

Mr. Hughes: I do not intend to say another word about my Amendment, Mr. Hynd. I have passed from that, but I was informing you, Mr. Hynd, and the Committee that I support this Amendment because it is second best to mine. This Amendment, proposed so well and persuasively by my hon. Friend, raises the very important question whether the existence or location of minerals should be a ground for including an agreement dealing with them in the special register, otherwise the secret register. I say it should not be so included. I say that the


proviso which my hon. Friend seeks to add to this Clause has very much the effect of excluding them. Their inclusion in the special register would do much to conceal from public knowledge—
the presence, absence or situation of any mineral or other deposits or as to any other similar matter,
The proviso would guard against that. Is that a good thing? I say it is a bad thing. This is very important, because the proviso will guard the public against that secrecy.
I will give reasons why I say that. It is contrary to the public interest, contrary to the general trend of history in these industrial matters and it will tend to keep the public in the dark with regard to matters in which they are vitally interested. It is not irrelevant to point out that this matter was the subject of a very interesting and learned letter by a member of the Bar in The Times the other day, in which Mr. Rabagliati, Q.C., drew attention to the historical side of the arguments in favour of avoiding secrecy in matters of this sort, when he said this:
Nearly 2,500 years ago, Phoenician merchants were interested in the tin mines in Cornwall and the Scilly Islands, but neither they nor their owners attempted to conceal from Pythias, who made his famous tour of exploration of Britain in 325 B.C., the existence or location of these mines.
That learned gentleman in his letter went on to point out—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is very cleverly using the speech which he would have used if the Amendment in his name had been called. I warn him again that he is getting out of order.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know how you can peep into my mind, Mr. Hynd, and know what speech I would have made.

Sir Leslie Plummer: "Hyndsight."

Mr. Hughes: I am addressing myself to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and that Amendment is designed to prevent the kind of secrecy against which I have been arguing. It is designed to prevent the kind of secrecy against which the writer of the letter which I have just quoted was also arguing against. Therefore, I support with cordiality the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), because it is obvious that if I tried I should very soon find myself out of order. I should like to say how much I welcome the declaration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the real advantage of a register lies in bringing the broad light of publicity to bear on these agreements, and the experience of Scandinavia certainly shows that that in itself is efficacious in bringing to an end many of the restrictive practices which operate against the public interest.
I only desire to ask, because I am not quite clear myself, how this particular provision for the special section of the register will act. It is proposed that the parties to the agreement will bring the provisions of their agreement to the notice of the Registrar or of the Board of Trade? Will they themselves initiate a request that their agreement should be put into the special register?
Subsection (3) provides for regulations being made as to
the register, and for the entry or filing in that section of such particulars as the Board of Trade may direct…
Are these regulations to be directed towards the general type of agreement which should be put into the special section of the register, or to a particular agreement itself?
Secondly, if it is to be a general direction and is to be done by the Registrar in pursuance of a general direction, is there any provision for the Board of Trade itself examining the special section of the Register? I may have failed to find it, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bill anything which would give to the Board of Trade itself access to the special section of the register.

Mr. A. E. Oram: I was rather surprised to hear the President of the Board of Trade make such heavy weather of the Amendment when he replied. I cannot really think that the acceptance of it would be such a major blow to the Bill as he tried to represent. I agree, of course, as I think we all agree, on all sides, that in dealing with restrictive agreements publicity of registration, while perhaps not entirely effective in itself, is a very useful weapon


in eliminating harmful agreements. That means, surely, that the public inspection which is provided for in subsection (4) ought to be made as straightforward as possible. That is to say, it should be possible for any member of the public to go to the office where the register is kept, pay the requisite fee and get the maximum possible information that any member of the public can get, as quickly as possible.
We on this side do not quarrel with the idea that in some cases certain parts of agreements ought not to be open to public inspection. That is in line with a similar provision of the 1948 Act regarding the publication of reports of the Monopolies Commission. It has, however, invariably been the practice of both the President himself and of his predecessors, when speaking of a report of the Monopolies Commission in the House, to indicate that there have been certain sections which have not been brought to the public notice—not to indicate what they arc, but briefly to indicate that there are certain sections which it is not in the public interest to disclose. That is all we are asking for in the Amendment.
If certain particulars of an agreement have been registered and others are kept aside in a register, that is perfectly legitimate. It means, however, that because of the gaps, the part which is in the register is likely to be nonsensical when a member of the public goes to look at it. All we are asking is that there should be a simple indication in the public register that there is a gap in the information. That would not give away any information which it was desirable to keep secret, but it would at least make the inspections a little more useful. That is all I have in mind in subscribing my name to the Amendment, and I think that is all my hon. Friends have in mind.
It is a simple, straightforward, commonsense Amendment, and I am surprised to hear the President of the Board of Trade make such heavy weather of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again and consider whether he can meet our point.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade might interpret the Amendment in a sense which might reassure us on

this side of the Committee, for we are as anxious as I am sure is the right hon. Gentleman that there should be the maximum publicity. Even if the full particulars which are to be entered in the special register are not to be disclosed to the public, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is highly desirable and will reassure those who are interested if the numbers of those entries are recorded so that we can have some idea of the proportion of those to be kept secret as compared with those to be made public.
I gather from the President that it is his intention that everything possible should be made public and that the register should be kept with the utmost stringency. Nobody doubts the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions here, but it is desirable that the public should see that his intentions are carried out. If it were found that there was a large proportion of entries in the special register, the public might get worried and might want to amend the law. The right hon. Gentleman might interpret the Amendment in that sense.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In reply to the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) I have to tell the Committee that the regulations which I would contemplate would be procedural regulations. The application would be made essentially to the Registrar, because the particulars would be furnished to the Registrar and I imagine that the application would be that part of those particulars should be registered in the confidential section. That application would be referred to the Board of Trade, which would have the responsibility of seeing what should and should not go into the confidential section. My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point in saying that there is not a provision for the Board of Trade to have access to the register. It may be necessary that it should have that access because it has a responsibility for issuing directions as to the order and timing of proceedings. I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for taking up that point.
I agree that there is a provision relating to confidential matters in the case of the Reports of the Monopolies Commission and it is a sound argument that there


should be in this case some indication of omissions such as the series of dots which appear in the Monopolies Commission Reports. But this is not quite a parallel, because those are Reports in which paragraphs are left out. I believe that in this case it would be remarkably difficult to indicate that there was an agreement in existence without naming the parties to it and making it clear to everybody what it was.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) about my good intentions, which I accept, and I assure him that it is my intention to keep the special register as small as possible. I think that it would be right that the Committee should be given some indication of the number of arrangements being entered in the confidential section compared with those entered in the other section. This adjustment between the two sections will not be an easy business. While I am clear about limiting this arrangement and about not letting information leak out on the nature of the agreements, I will consider whether it will be possible from time to time to indicate the extent to which the confidential section is being used.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to insert:
or—
(c) particulars containing information the publication of which would in the opinion of the Board cause a substantial reduction in the volume or earnings of the export trade of any trade or industry in the United Kingdom.
This is a relatively simple, but fairly important point. It is to ensure that discretion in the matter of export business extends to the register as well as to the agreement. In connection with the Monopolies Commission, the discretion of the Board of Trade under the 1948 Act to make excisions from the Report of the Commission in the interests of the export trade obviously proved inadequate, and unless I am very wrong this fact appears to be recognised by Her Majesty's Government, because Clause 25 (2) of the Bill seeks to correct this oversight by providing wider discretion, inasmuch as it says:

notwithstanding anything in section nine of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, the Board of Trade shall not be required to lay before Parliament any report made to them by the Monopolies Commission which relates exclusively to exports of goods … or may be expected to operate against the public interest.
A wider discretion is, therefore, allowed in relation to agreements, and I submit that it is desirable and appears to be logical to provide a similar discretion to the Board of Trade in connection with registration.
This Amendment assures that the interests of the export trade are specifically covered, or could be in the circumstances described in the Amendment, for special as opposed to a public registration. It may be possible to argue that the point which I am trying to make is substantially covered in paragraph (a). I would accept that assurance if it were given to me, though I do not feel that it is so covered. It might equally be argued by my right hon. Friend that there can be several decisions on this matter; that a tribunal is set up to decide some of these considerations as to whether an industry or trade is affected in its export earnings. That seems to be a reasonable argument in so far as agreements are concerned, but at this stage we are dealing with the register. What goes on the register or what does not go on the register is no part of the decision of the Court. It is the decision of the Registrar.
I cannot myself see, although I am interested in this point, how it is possible to conceive that there is any jurisdiction in this matter at this stage of the register other than what the Registrar under his appointment decides shall go on it. If it is proper in certain circumstances—and, of course, they must be special circumstances—that certain agreements shall be kept secret in the interests of the export trade or for some reason of that nature, as is provided for later in this Bill—if that is sensible, and I think it is—and it was one of the short-comings of the Monopolies Act, 1948—then that should maintain equally for the registering of the agreements referred to.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There are several difficulties about this. I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) that damage should not be done to the export trade. Clearly, this is one of the matters one would take into account in weighing the


public interest. Indeed, I would have thought that if one took the view that public registration of the agreement was really going to cause substantial damage that would be something which any President of the Board of Trade would judge to be contrary to the public interest.
The difficulty about this Amendment is that it asks us to prejudge precisely the question which the Court may be asked to judge at a later date. It would mean if we were operating under this new paragraph (c) we should prejudge one of the criteria specifically laid down in Clause 16. There is something to be said for a Minister judging these things. There is something to be said for a Court judging them, but there is absolutely nothing to be said for both of them judging them, and perhaps in contrary senses. It is a practicable arrangement. Moreover the wording is restrictive, that is to say, it is much narrower to say that a Minister must be satisfied that there will be a substantial reduction in the volume of earnings.
I have indicated that I want to keep this confidential section small but, at the same time, I can conceive of circumstances where it would be proper to use it at a number of points where there is something less than a substantial reduction in export earnings. There are other circumstances rather less grave in which it might be possible to use subsection (4). So, on my undertaking to my hon. Friend that these are the kind of considerations which are certainly within paragraph (a), I hope he will rest content.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It is an agreeable task to intervene to defend the President from his hon. Friends. I welcomed wholeheartedly what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier about the desirability of keeping down to the minimum the extent and importance of the special section of the register. I think that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman reveals an important difference upon this matter between the two sides of the Committee and it is encouraging that we should have the support and agreement of the President of the Board of Trade.
I should have thought it clearly desirable that this special section should be kept down to the minimum. One asks oneself why it is that the hon. Member for

Shipley should want to have resort to all the furtive processes which are attendant upon a special register. The hon. Gentleman seems to regard British industry as a kind of Stilton cheese which is something different when it is closely regarded from what it appears to be at first sight.
Our view of the matter is that this procedure of registration will have as its most valuable practical effect the publicity which it will attract in its initial processes to different classes of restrictive agreements. That is one of the great merits of the Bill, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman would probably so regard it. What will happen is that as the first classes of restrictive practices are delineated and defined by being placed upon the register, there is every reason to expect and hope that there will be an immediate reaction in industry and trade, and that a series of restrictive practices which, but for the publicity in this way attracted would have continued indefinitely, will be subjected to self-correction.
Bearing that in mind, it seems to us most desirable that there should be the maximum degree of publicity attaching to the register, and not merely publicity but reference by industry and by the public to the register. It should be recognised by the Committee that it is a remarkable thing that a Measure of this kind is being introduced by a Conservative Government. Undoubtedly, this is a circumstance of great political and social importance.
10.15 p.m.
Heaven knows the extent of the tedium which nowadays envelops and engulfs our political life, but that is penetrated by a Measure of this kind in which, by its statutory power, a Conservative Government authorises the most extraordinary and heart-searching investigations into the activities of British industry. This is a very welcome and a very admirable thing, and we on this side of the Committee would strongly object to any provision which limited or diminished the publicity which it is desired should be attracted to the register.
I think it is fair to say that this Amendment is designed to reduce and limit the amount of publicity which the register is going to attract, and by so doing, of course, it is going plainly counter to the whole spirit and merits of this Bill. I cannot say too emphatically how strongly


I welcome the obviously determined disposition of the President to resist the arguments of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Hirst: I really cannot accept the arguments of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). There is far more at stake than the sort of parochial outlook which he is bringing into the matter. We are referring to the export trade of the country which is far more important that whether an agreement is in this or that section of the register. All I was arguing was that if it was thought wise in the interest of our export business that certain details should not be published for all and sundry to see and to snoop into, then it should be done in the interests of the export trade, and I apologise to no one for so arguing.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said, but I must take him up quite briefly on one point. I do not think it is true to suggest that I was asking for the matter to be prejudged, because whether it were in the special or the normal section of the register would not alter the fact that it would, in turn, be judged on its merits. I was only saying that in certain instances it might be to the advantage of our overseas trade that certain agreements should be registered in that special section. However, on the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he is seized of this point and believes that a great deal of what I have in mind would be covered by paragraph (a), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(4) Parties to an agreement may make application to the Board of Trade that the whole or any part of an agreement should be included in the special section of the Register.
(5) If an application under the last subsection is refused by the Board of Trade the parties to an agreement may appeal to the High Court against the Board's refusal and the decision of the court shall be final.
It would be a little more original to move this Amendment if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) had not already made a speech upon it in opposition to the Amendment before last which I should very much have welcomed in my own support. But the point of this Amendment is quite a short one.
It seemed to some of us that Clause 9 was incomplete in that it provided in subsection (3) that regulations would be made
for the maintenance of a special section of the register, and for the entry or filing in that section of such particulars as the Board of Trade may direct.
But it did not make any provision concerning how the entries were to get on the Register and how the President was to decide what entries should be contained in the Register. Consequently, the first part of this Amendment provides that:
Parties to an agreement may make application to the Board of Trade that the whole or any part of an agreement should be included in the special section of the Register.
As I understood my right hon. Friend the President, when he was replying to an entirely different Amendment, he indicated that there would be procedural regulations which would result in a party to an agreement making an application to the Registrar for leave to have the agreement, or any part of it, contained in the special section. If that is so, I should be quite prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's assurance.
But that does not entirely meet the second part of the Amendment. The Board of Trade may fail to see the point of the party to the agreement who desires that it shall be in the special section. I entirely share my right hon. Friend's desire to keep this special section as short and as strictly defined as possible, but there is very grave room for doubt between the views of the business man and the views of the administrative departmental official whether or not the contents of an agreement, if disclosed, are likely to affect our export trade.
The second part of the Amendment therefore provides for a right of appeal in the event of a decision going against the applicant. It may seem a little odd to make the right of appeal to the High Court, from the President, but in the circumstances of the Bill it is the logical action. Applicants already have the right of appeal to the High Court from the Registrar in certain circumstances. Although my right hon. Friend has the onus of deciding whether or not an agreement shall go into the special section, nevertheless the application is made to the Registrar, and if we are to have any appeal from the Board of Trade it can go only to the High Court. I hope that


my right hon. Friend will accept that part of the Amendment, or, if he has difficulty in accepting the possibility that he may be over-ruled by the High Court, will suggest an alternative which will cause him no difficulty.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having put down the Amendment. It helps me to clarify two points. He is quite right in saying that I have covered the first part of the Amendment in my answer to a previous one. It does not really need a provision in the Bill—we cannot prevent anyone applying to the Board of Trade—but in fact regulations will be made to lay down the procedure under which applications to put an agreement into the special section of the register are to be framed.
I am less happy about the second part of the Amendment. What has to be decided here is essentially a matter of the public interest, upon such matters as foreign policy, defence, or our external commercial relations, and it seems to me that these are essentially matters for Ministerial decision. That is what Ministers are for. I do not want to press the argument too far and have it turned against me because it reflects some wider discussions that we had on Clause 1.
Assuming that I can carry the Committee so far as to say that the initial decision upon matters of foreign policy and the public interest generally, in its widest sense, is a matter for Ministers, I do not think that it would be right to give an appeal from that Ministerial decision to the High Court. I agree that it is difficult to see where else it could go, but the answer is not to have an appeal, but to leave the matter with the Minister, who is charged with making decisions in the public interest.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On this side of the Committee we welcome with open arms the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade because it supports our fundamental objection to the Bill. We appreciate the terrible difficulty he is in.
There is an additional reason, which from one lawyer to another, may appeal to the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks), relating to what would be the subject of the appeal to the High Court. It would be not merely that of

the Public interest or the damage to the business interests of any person, but what the intention of the Board of Trade would be. That is an impossibility. Therefore, the Clause as it stands cannot possibly be accepted. For the substantial reason I mentioned in the first case, and for the rather legalistic reason which I mentioned in the second place, we are in complete agreement with the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Philip Bell: Let me try to rescue the President of the Board of Trade. Here we have the words "public interest," and they appear in Clause 16. Then we have the special court which is to consider the public interest. We have here the President of the Board of Trade making a decision on the matter.
Think how it will work out in practice. Manufacturers will say, "We want to make an agreement about this matter, but it concerns a secret process. We will not make an agreement at all if it is to be disclosed. Shall we make that agreement? If we make it, it may receive publicity." Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade may consider making some provision in the rule for the opinion of the Board of Trade to be consulted before an agreement is registered. People who want to make an agreement may be in a very difficult position, because it may all be on the secret register.
The persons concerned may go to the President of the Board of Trade, but he cannot take the matter any further. They would say, "If we are to have publicity we will not make the agreement and if we make the agreement there is no stopping the thing. We may give away valuable secrets." It is a vital matter to some trades whether they will have secrecy or not. Secrecy is sometimes the beginning of everything. It will be very hard for the President of the Board of Trade to say, "We must ask you to abide by our decision". It might have disastrous consequences to the trade, which would have no recourse to the courts.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will mitigate the blow by saying that he will consider adjusting the rules to provide that application can be made to him before the secret is revealed


to the world, and that the parties may take the advice of the Board of Trade before making an agreement to know whether it will come on to the secret register or not.

Mr. Hirst: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) in this matter. In my experience I have known of agreements in which there have been absolutely secret processes and it has been essential that the secret should be kept. I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and others who have had experience of these matters in the courts, that it may be vital to the firms concerned that secrecy should be maintained. The President of the Board of Trade has not met the point of this argument, which is on a fundamental matter, and I am determined to see that the point is met, because it is very important.
It is a matter on which I have a right to speak after experience of agreements by trade associations over about twenty years. It would be absolutely shattering if, in fact, under the Clause as it now stands, certain processes which are of a secret nature had to be disclosed. In the past, it would have meant that no agreement could have been made and that, in the export trade, would have been highly detrimental to the country. This is a technical matter, and I ask my right hon. Friend, who has plenty of people to advise him, to take advice from others than the legally-minded gentlemen at the Board of Trade. I ask him to look at this matter again, because, otherwise, I must say that I am not prepared to support him.

10.30 p.m.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I must say that I think some of the arguments have gone rather beyond my Amendment. I was disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply, but I appreciate his difficulty and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have got to Clause 9, and I would remind the Committee that we have a

very long way yet to go. There is no question here of anyone in any quarter of the Committee seeking to obstruct the progress of the Bill but, at the same time, in the days ahead we should, I think, concentrate on making rather faster progress.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Louth [copy laid before the House, 26th April], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Stalybridge [copy laid before the House, 26th April], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Tendring [copy laid before the House, 26th April], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Orders of the Day — BORROWING (CONTROL)

10.34 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Borrowing (Amendment) Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 358), dated 13th March, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March. be annulled.
In the days when the Conservative Party were in opposition they were very severe critics of the Capital Issues Committee and all that lay behind it, and I have no doubt that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will welcome this opportunity of explaining to the House why it is that the Government are not only maintaining this Committee but are extending its powers to cover any issue in excess of £10,000—a step which no Socialist Government, even in their heyday, thought fit to take.
I can well understand that there is great pressure on the resources which are available today for investment and that


it is important for this country to see that a proper distribution of those resources is made. I have no doubt that the Government will say that by extending the powers of this Committee they are enabled to exercise a firmer curb on what is called non-essential investment, and can also establish more priorities among what are called essential investment projects.
It is a little odd, perhaps, that in these times when it is believed that the Government's policy is to restrain some sorts of investment, new issues have almost doubled this year as against the corresponding period last year. We have to ask ourselves whether this Order will be of really substantial benefit to the economy and whether it will, in fact, enable the Government to exercise a reasonable control over investment.
The Capital Issues Committee deals with only one part of one section of our economy. It works on one section only of the private enterprise field. If a company can find money from its own resources, it can invest that money as it likes, and the Capital Issues Committee has no power to interfere. There seems little rhyme or reason in that situation. If the petrol companies went to the Capital Issues Committee to raise money for their new filling stations, I wonder whether authority would be granted to enable them to do so. But, of course, they have been able to raise that money from their own resources.
In fact, this is another measure which seems to favour the larger established company and possibly to make things more difficult for the small, new, enterprisim", company. It is also a fact that the number of rejections is surprisingly small. It works out at about one in twelve applications, I believe, and not a very large sum of money is involved.
One has to ask oneself then whether it is worth keeping this machinery. Further, as I say, it operates on only one section of one part of the economy, and it leaves out altogether the most serious problem facing the investment policy of the Government, namely, the problem of Government investment, and, more particularly, the investment by the nationalised industries. They can borrow large sums at a low rate of interest with a Government guarantee. They are assured that if they get into

trouble the Government will stand behind them. Private enterprise has to run the gauntlet of the Capital Issues Committee, and to face the ultimate sanction of bankruptcy if things go wrong.
There is no comparison between investment in the public and private sectors. It will be said that this is justifiable because the nationalised industries are basic or essential industries. We all know how vague those words are. But even if they can be given any reasonable meaning, who can say that rail transport, for example, is more basic or essential than shipping, or that coal is today more basic or essential than oil?
Personally, I think it is difficult to defend the existence of this Committee at all. But it would be more easy to defend if its activities were extended to cover the nationalised sector of industry. I do not pretend that that would be at all easy, but we have got ourselves into a position of considerable difficulty in controlling investment in the nationalised sector, and, therefore, the difficulty has to be faced.
There is something to be said for having a body which would review the competing claims of different industries, possibly nationalised and private, or possibly only nationalised, and which would then make a recommendation as to how the available resources in a given period could be allocated. I can imagine it acting like the University Grants Committee, which reconciles the competing claims of different universities and which would be free from the log-rolling which is liable to go on in Parliament.
If we are to have this Committee, it seems to me that it should be made wider and more general in scope, just because we need a better control of investment more in the nationalised than in the private sector. It might also get over some of the difficulties of public control of the nationalised industries. But here the Order is going the other way. It is giving the Capital Issues Committee more detailed responsibility for examining even smaller issues than it examines at present. It is, in fact, giving it an impossible task. After all, £10,000 is a fairly small amount to invest.
The Committee must, of course, act under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is true that from time to time the Chancellor, in reply to


Parliamentary Questions, does publish these directions. Usually they are of a temporary nature—that it is not to discourage financing of hire purchase and so on. But now it appears that the Committee is to be a permanent feature of our financial machinery. It was set up by a Labour Government and has been maintained for five years by a Conservative Government, and its scope has been extended. No longer can it be said that it is a temporary ad hoc body. In these circumstances, the Government should tell us more about the place which they feel this Committee can usefully fill in the machinery at their disposal and the general long-term proposals upon which it is to act, give us more current information on the directives issued to the Committee about its activities and about their definition of inessential and essential investment.
There have been some rather curious incidents in the career of this Committee. We believe that one Scottish bank was refused permission to make an issue to its employees, although profit sharing is a part of Government policy. In the case of bids for control of the Savoy Hotel there was considerable criticism of the way in which money could be found. Brewers have been allowed to make very large public issues—perhaps rightly and properly so—but what is the principle and logic behind the decisions of this Committee?
No doubt there is some sort of planning, and if it is reasonable planning I am sure that Parliament will welcome it; but planning from time to time does take on the rôle of a lottery in which the croupiers are done up to look like scientists but in which the results are largely a question of chance. I wonder whether, if there had been a Capital Issues Committee 100 years ago and the whisky industry had come to it, that industry would not have been sent away with a flea in its ear?

Mr. Speaker: I rather think the hon. Member is now going beyond the terms of the Order, which do not raise the question of the constitution of the Committee or power to control borrowing. It merely alters the limits to which the Committee should go. The on. Member must direct his speech to the alteration proposed in the Order.

Mr. Grimond: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. My point is that if we are to extend the powers of the Committee we should hear a little more about how those powers are to be used and, in view of the enlargement of its scope, the Committee should now make some report to Parliament. It is going to have to review even more issues, and we know only in round figures the number of applications made to it and the number accepted or refused. Has not the time come, now that this Committee has become a permanent Committee in our economic life, when there should be an annual review of its activities? We should be told also how much it relies on its independent judgment and how much it is a creature of the Government? What machinery has it got for these minute investigations? Further, does the Committee now discriminate in the terms of issues? Originally there was a strong prejudice against bonus issues and so on Does that continue or is the question today simply one as to the purposes for which the money is wanted?
Finally, when we consider the reasons for making this reduction from £50,000 to £10,000 at this time, what exactly is its object? Is it because there has been evasion in the raising of funds for hire purchase? Have people in fact been raising more than £50,000 by raising money in different sums and making up more than £50,000 in smaller amounts? If so, can the Government assure us that this evasion is so serious that the extension of the powers of the Committee is necessary to stop it, and will the extension stop it? I have a feeling that often attempts to stop what we call evasion may do great harm to perfectly legitimate financial dealings. I am sure that the final sanction is that the rules should be reasonable and defensible. Are the rules in this case reasonable and defensible? Is £10,000 a reasonable limit? Is there evasion on such a scale that in this limited sector of the economy we need to pass every issue over £10,000 through the machinery of this Committee?
I have asked a good many questions of the Government, but I hope that they will not reply in the way they always accused the Socialist Government of replying, by ignoring all questions and simply by proceeding to operate the Committee. We are entitled to know a little more now about its working.
I end by making it quite clear that, in my remarks about the Committee, I certainly do not want to make any criticism of its members. They obviously have an exceedingly difficult—I should say impossible—task to do, and this House owes them a debt of gratitude. There is no suggestion in any critical remarks I make that they do not discharge the duties laid upon them, which I personally find difficult to understand, with anything except the greatest ability and attention.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to second the Motion.
Both the Government and the House should get the Order in a proper sense of proportion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said, we are considering a proposal, which as far as I know was never even suggested, let alone carried out, by the Socialist Government, that all borrowings and loans of £10,000 and over for capital purposes should be submitted to the Capital Issues Committee.
In industry, £10,000 is a very small amount. Who is it that is asking private industry to do this and to submit its requests for borrowing, not from the Government but from other private individuals, to the Capital Issues Committee, which, as we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on frequent occasions, is an advisory body and is merely advising the Chancellor? Of course, it is the Government, whose National Debt now stands at some £27,000 million, who are asking that these small people, when they want to borrow money, should come and ask permission. It seems to me that we are getting the whole thing out of proportion.
It is also this Government which in the last four year have increased the Treasury Bill issues by something like £1,000 million, which many economists consider to be the real cause of the trouble and which is doubtless the reason the Government will give for bringing in the Order. By not dealing with that trouble, they are now trying to stop up the hole in this small way.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member is getting more confused as he goes on. What would hon. Members opposite do? Do they want to wind

up this body or to extend its powers? Do they think that £10,000 is the wrong limit? What do they consider is the right limit?

Mr. Speaker: This is really going much beyond the Order, which is quite limited in scope.

Mr. Holt: I realise there is some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to keep to the Motion.
Whilst I agree that there may be some case for control by some such machinery for large borrowing, the purpose of my argument is to show that if only one keeps a sense of proportion about it, the lower the figure becomes, the worse is the case for having such a control. When we get down to £10,000 we are really reducing the whole thing to absurdity. In the context of the Government's activities, I should have thought that was a valid point.
It may be said that in this Order the Government are not concerned just with a financial exercise but are indirectly concerned to reduce capital projects. It may be said that by reducing the amount which people can borrow without going to the Capital Issues Committee they will stop some capital projects which otherwise would be carried out.
Let us bear in mind, in that respect again, the kind of figures with which we are dealing. In 1955 the gross capital investment was £2,270 million, and now we are talking about curbing people who want to borrow more than £10,000. The idea will not stand examination. When it is remembered that undistributed profits amounting to about £1,400 million can be used in these capital projects, this Order appears to be even more absurd. If a man wants to carry out a capital extension costing £20,000 and he has not the money, he has to go to the Capital Issues Committee, whereas another man might borrow it unsecured from somebody else or might use his own resources.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) inquired some time ago about the number of applications accepted by the Capital Issues Committee. We were told that about 96 per cent. were approved. Do the Government contemplate any such figure as a result of this new Order? Will 95 per cent. or 96 per cent. of the applications still be accepted, or is this Order intended


to be a complete bar on small borrowing? Is this another attack by the Govenrment on the small man? Why are the Government so opposed to his activities wherever he can raise his head?
The present Government are supposed to be sympathetic towards the idea that the small man should be able to make his own decisions, and they are supposed to prefer that he should take decisions rather than the man in Whitehall. How do the Government consider that this Order is consistent with that kind of outlook? The whole purpose of the Order is to scrutinise every small increase in capital investment on the part of the small man. If the Government, through the Capital Issues Committee, think it desirable in the national interest, investment is reduced. I should have thought that any party which believed in the desirability of a free economy would have turned down a proposal of the kind embodied in this Order straight away.
Surely the justification for a free economy is that anyone who may appear to have some madcap scheme as originally presented but who at last gets someone to lend him money to carry it out, should be allowed to go forward. In a free economy the Government's job is to see that as few obstacles as possible are placed in the way of such a person. Can anyone say that there is no possibility of the Capital Issues Committee turning down a scheme costing £20,000 or so which, if it had been allowed to go forward, might have become an excellent enterprise, growing eventually into a very big one and a great national asset? Of course no one can say that, because they are arbitrary decisions and many people in business must know of small beginnings which seemed foolish and unwise and risky which eventually justified the faith which the original entrepreneur put into them. Those are the kind of things which may be curtailed under such a regulation.
The Economic Secretary appears to smile at the suggestion, but the fact remains that he is putting another obstacle in the way of such an enterprise. As anyone with experience of industry knows, it is difficult enough to start such enterprises in any case, and the last thing which a Government professing to believe in private enterprise should do is to put more obstacles in the way.
My last point concerns the particular aspect of this matter which could be seen in the financial papers when the Order was introduced, and that was the suggestion that this was done largely to curtail the activities of the mushroom hire-purchase finance houses and that the Chancellor had sent specific instructions to the C.I.C. to curtail hire-purchase finance.
There may be some curtailment, I agree, but there has been nothing done to stop these hire-purchase finance companies getting unsecured deposits. What, in effect, the Government are doing by this Order is to encourage the unsound structure of such hire-purchase finance companies. The papers show every day the kind of interest rates that are being offered by these companies for unsecured loans, because unsecured loans are the only things they can get without going to the C.I.C., and if they went there they would be turned down in any case. There is no doubt that the Government have not yet adequately restricted credit, and the result is that these companies are being encouraged to conduct their affairs on what is considered under normal circumstances to be a thoroughly unsound basis.
I hope that when the Economic Secretary replies he will deal with that aspect of the matter, and will also give us an indication of what has happened on the C.I.C. since this Order was first promulgated. Presumably something has happened which he can tell us about, although I agree that the time is short. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman can tell us about the effect on the number of applications that have been made for these smaller amounts, and how many have been turned down. I also hope that, even at this late hour, the Government may regret their first action and will drop this Order.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: As the hon. Member whose Question received the affirmative answer which led to the alteration of £50,000 to £10,000, I want to support the Economic Secretary in what I presume will be his defence. I was not sure exactly what was the point of the previous speeches. I was not sure whether the speakers wanted to abolish the Capital Issues Committee or to restore the 10,000 to £50,000.
Turning to the official Opposition, I hope that they will not join in the hunt


against this Order because, although my Question received an affirmative answer, it was preceded by one from a most distinguished Labour spokesman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) pointed out in a Question he put only a week or two earlier that widespread evasion was taking place over the £50,000 rule, and that it ought to be altered because the Bank Rate was not proving sufficient to stop evasion.
Various questions have been asked and it is not my place to answer officially, but I can say what it was that led me to put down my Question. It was nothing to do with interfering with the small man. One can make an argument for or against dear money, one can make an argument for or against monetary policy, but one cannot make a responsible answer in this House for having a policy and then deliberately permitting an evasion of it.
The reason which led me to put down my Question was that it became known to anyone acquainted with what was going on in the City that certain institutions, bodies and individuals were starting up to borrow large sums of money and to borrow and lend so that the Bank Rate, high though it is, could not touch them—sums of £49,500, several under the same roof and with the same directors; an obvious evasion of the rule.
I do hope that the official Opposition, in any comments they may make tonight, will not fall into the error of attacking this policy, because they did set the £50,000 limit, and if evasion was taking place I should expect them to support any measure to prevent it. All that has happened, in fact, today is that one further step has been taken, as the Bank Rate has proved not sufficient, to prevent this evasion in the future.
I will show briefly what has happened with the Bank Rate at 5½ per cent. one has only to read certain financial papers and advertisements to know that one can borrow money today at seven per cent., or nine per cent. and lend it at 11 per cent, or even 13 per cent.
Of course, it is easy to say that by reducing the amount to £10,000 it would theoretically be possible for someone to start up an increased number of companies at £9,500 for each; but it becomes increasingly difficult to do.
I do hope that hon. Members opposite, and particularly the two hon. Members of the Liberal Opposition who have spoken tonight, do not fall into the error of thinking that what the Government are trying to do is to stop any legitimate institution, small or large, from proceeding in the same way as before this Order was made. Because of the deliberate evasion which was taking place, the Government has had no alternative but to back up the Bank Rate to get over what was beginning to amount in the City to a racket. I welcome with extreme pleasure what the hon. Gentleman the Economic Secretary was able to say when he denounced what was a calculated evasion being practised.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. P. C. Gordon Walker: I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the Government have a little explaining to do to account for the reason why they are introducing this Order at the present time. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Bennett) has said that there was a great deal of evasion. But the Financial Times, commenting on this Order in a leading article on 14th March, says:
The obvious explanation of the Chancellor's decision to tighten the control exercised by the Capital Issues Committee does not, after all, appear to be the right one. There is no suggestion from official quarters that there has recently been any significant increase in capital borrowing of amounts between £10,000 and £50,000 in order to escape the C.I.C. net.
The article goes on to say:
If the Chancellor is concerned with a potential danger rather than an actual one, then he is showing great nervousness.
Has there been great evasion? Is the Financial Times wrong, or was the Chancellor nervous, or wanting to create some psychological impression? It appears from further analysis in the Financial Times that the Order does not affect the ability of hire-purchase institutions to obtain resources by attracting deposits. They can go on just the same after the Order as before it.
I was a little surprised at the hon. Member for Torquay rushing to the defence of his Government, because this is a contradiction of the Government's general policy of relying on monetary controls. The Financial Times in that same article says:


The fact that it is the kind of direct control over business activity which cuts across Conservative principles of commercial freedom appears to have been overlooked.
That is the judgment of the Financial Times, a judgment which, I should have thought, would have been accepted by the hon. Member for Torquay.

Mr. Bennett: As the right hon. Member has specifically directed his remarks to me, I would say that I think he might mention the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on the fact that evasion was taking place, and whose remarks preceded mine by a couple of weeks. I think the right hon. Gentleman might spare a word or two about his right hon. Friend's view on this matter.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I only mentioned the hon. Member for Torquay because he was the one who had spoken on the matter tonight. When I read what the Financial Times said I was a little shaken as to whether his information was altogether accurate in this respect.
It really is a minutely detailed discriminatory control going right down to £10,000, the very sort of thing with which this Government when making their perorations, and so forth, say they want nothing to do. The Government can only use the controls which survive and are then driven, because they will not use others, to push them much too far, as happens in this case.
This control is certainly going to affect the little men, the men who did not have to go through this before and who now face more difficulties than before. It will make a lot of difference to small businesses. The Labour Government who introduced this control never applied it below £50,000, and, of course, when that Government left office £50,000 was worth a lot more than it is today. Today £10,000 is a very real reduction compared with what the minimum was when administered by the Labour Government. We were then able to use other supplementary controls. This Government are limited to the very few controls that have survived and, therefore, are forced to push them to really rather absurd lengths.
None the less, in present circumstances and, granted we have a Government which can only use the controls which have survived, I suppose it is better that some controls should be used rather than

that none at all should be used. But it would be very much better if the Government would have the courage to apply in general the policy which they are applying in particular here, namely, to use other controls to supplement this one. They would then not need to push this control as far as they have in fact to push it. On balance we think that this Government should have even absurdly discriminatory controls rather than none at all.

11.8 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): With one remark of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) I certainly quite agree, namely, that this Order is a clear sign that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the debate last February, this Government do not take a doctrinaire view of direct controls. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a direct control, but a direct control which is a very natural and reasonable adjunct to the credit squeeze which has now been in operation ever since my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made his request to the banks last July.
The purpose of this Order is to bring under control the raising of capital, whether by borrowing or by the issue of shares, of amounts between £10,000 and £50,000. Of course, larger projects are already controlled by the Control of Borrowing Order, 1947. Projects involving less than £10,000 are very frequently financed by bank advances and have therefore been subject to scrutiny by the banks since the request of 25th July last year. I think it would have been illogical to leave entirely uncontrolled the investment of the medium sized sums.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). It seemed to me that the logical conclusion of his speech was that it was extremely wrong and anti-social on the part of the banks ever to refuse advances to anyone for investment purposes. Really, it is no good blaming the Government about Treasury Bills because of their inflationary effect and then saying, "We must have more or less unlimited bank advances". It is not only the total volume of credit which has inflationary effect but the velocity of the circulation. Therefore, a curb on bank advances is


not less important if we are to curb inflation than the regulation of the size of the credit base.

Mr. Holt: It is difficult for anyone starting an enterprise to get over the ordinary hurdles of the market, one of which is bank advances.

Sir E. Boyle: I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was very much in favour of them. If that doctrine were carried out, we should certainly have an inflationary position for a very long time, and it has been thought necessary by my right hon. Friend to put on some curb. We had indications that small companies were being begun with capital below £50,000. I personally scrutinise every case where a recommendation of refusal is made by the Capital Issues Committee. That Committee has been very much concerned with applications that have been put out since the Order was made. One of the first was an application for an issue of 890 shares at 1s., which amounts to about £49,000. Applications have been sent for the raising of very nearly £50,000 by each of the six subsidiaries of a property-developing firm, applications which before 1st March would not have been necessary by companies wishing to raise capital to finance their businesses.

Mr. Gordon Walker: What was the amount of capital involved?

Sir E. Boyle: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the March figures. In cases of under £50,000 but over £10,000 there were 22 refusals, all after 13th March, when the new Order was made.
On the point that this bears hardly upon the smaller undertakings, I cannot see that there is any reason why small undertakings, simply because they are small, should be insulated from the effects of my right hon. Friend's present measures. I assure the House that the criteria to be applied to small projects will be no different from or more harsh than those applied to larger projects, but it cannot be right to leave a loophole by which larger concerns can escape the scrutiny or supervision of its small projects done by its subsidiary companies. Because a concern is very small it does not follow that it is begun by a small company.
Mention has been made of the effect of the Order on building activity. It is too early yet to assess or to know, beyond saying that the Committee will have regard to the urgency of a building scheme. It seems likely, judging by current cases I have seen, that building will be considerably affected, but we shall be spared the turning down of projects of the greatest urgency.
We have been told that this is an irksome control for the small business. I can assure the House that that is not so. There is honestly no evidence that that is happening. I cannot tonight discuss other controls which the Government, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, might think of using; but I think it is one advantage of the Capital Issues Committee that it is expeditious and that there is no delay, and that no great number of staff or administrative machinery is involved. The volume of applications to the Committee did naturally increase immediately the Order was made, because there was a considerable number of urgent cases in which borrowing transactions had already been negotiated for completion at an agreed date.
The C.I.C. has had a high reputation for the prompt despatch of business and has maintained this reputation despite increased work. The average time between the receipt of an application and a decision in urgent cases is not more than from two to seven days. In straightforward cases which do not need to be referred to other Government Departments the time is from 10 to 14 days; and in cases which have to be referred to other Departments, or involve correspondence with the applicants—very much a minority of the cases—from three to four weeks. The vast majority of cases are settled in not more than from 10 to 14 days. I do my best, from the point of view of personal efficiency, not to be responsible for any case being held up.
We cannot tonight have a sort of Private Member's Motion debate on the general machinery of the C.I.C., but I hope that I have satisfied the House that there was a perfectly sensible reason for the Order as an adjunct of the general credit policy. If one is restricting credit it is not unreasonable to restrict access to capital isues at the same time. We are watching how the control works. So far as I have been able to see, it works


as expeditiously and efficiently as any control can be expected to do. So far, the results justify the decision to lower the exemption limit. I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: May I put one question to my hon. Friend arising out of his statement tonight? He referred to the fact, which must be correct, that a large number of transactions were on the point of completion when this Order was made, involving sums of more than £10,000 and less than £50,000. In these transactions people had entered into commitments to borrow money, or entered into building contracts to be financed by the money they had arranged to obtain. The Economic Secretary said that in a large number of cases applications had had to be made where transactions would have gone through without application to the C.I.C. if the Order had not reduced the limit from £50,000 to £10,000. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in cases of that kind, where people have entered into contracts and would possibly be involved in heavy loss if they could not proceed with those contracts, the C.I.C. will give sympathetic consideration to them? Otherwise, it would be grossly unfair to people who have entered into contracts and at the last moment may be prevented from fulfilling them.

Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to it in the Economic Statement in February, and I tried to explain the position in answer to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). The position was that in cases where there was a request to borrow £50,000, or more, the Chancellor said in February that the C.I.C. would take no notice of the fact that contracts had been entered into. I think that that is perfectly right. In cases where there was a reqest for borrowing less

than £50,000, that could, as it were, be specially pleaded before the C.I.C., a special plea could be entered in those cases.

11.20 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I shall not keep the House for more than a minute or two, but I would not like the impression to go out from here that this Order is disliked only by the Liberal Party. Some of us on this side dislike it, too. The reason is that here we have the Capital Issues Committee, a body of highly-skilled people, asked to deal with matters which those people cannot possibly judge. They can only take decisions on principle. When we consider the range of business in this country, all the various kinds of businesses there are, how can one single body in London judge in the very short time at its disposal the merits of the propositions which are put before it?
These can only be matters of principle, and I am very unhappy at the idea of the Capital Issues Committee first judging the merits of the cases and then my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary also having to look at those cases. We have a great respect for the Economic Secretary, and I am sorry he has to add to his multifarious duties the task, the duty, of scrutinising one by one—as he has told us he does—all the applications turned down by the Capital Issues Committee. I appreciate that in the present circumstances it may be necessary to take drastic measures, but I beg of my hon. Friend to think of how soon he can relax this Order.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.